2004 Election Debate part 2
Saturday, September 20, 2003
Ann Stewart 810
08-25-2003 09:44 PM ET (US)
Yes Lysa
I have learned a lot from you guys too. I love you for it.
Lysa 811
08-25-2003 09:52 PM ET (US)
Rove has tactics, one of them will be using the candidate's record. And as record's go how will Kerry address this one? Because you know Rove is already on to it.
Kerry's missed votes (this year 306):
1: Procedural Motion - Adjourn to Time Certain 2: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security 3: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security 4: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Block Grants 5: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Funding 6: FY 2003 Approp.s - Rural Antidrug Program 7: FY 2003 Approp.s - Spending Reinstatement 8: FY 2003 Approp.s - Foreign Cruise Ships 13: Ridge Nomination - Confirmation 14: FY 2003 Approp.s - Unemployment Ins. 15: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief 16: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief 17: FY 2003 Approp.s - African Famine Relief 18: FY 2003 Approp.s - US AirPension Plan 26: FY 2003 Approp.s - Prohibit Quotas for Job Priv. 31: Adams Nomination - Confirmation 32: Otero Nomination - Confirmation 33: Junell Nomination - Confirmation 36: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance 37: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance 39: Pledge of Allegiance - Adoption 44: Frost Nomination - Confirmation 45: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Emer. Contracep.s 46: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception 47: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Motion to Commit 49: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception 50: Quarles Nomination - Confirmation 51: "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban - Passage 52: Varlan Nomination - Confirmation 53: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 55: Breen Nomination - Confirmation 60: FY 2004 Budget Res. - Education Funding 109: Coalition Member Support - Adoption 110: Military Tax Breaks - Passage 111: Selna Nomination - Confirmation 112: Springmann Nomination - Confirmation 114: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 115: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Port Security 116: FY '03 War Supp. - Nat'l. Guard & Reserves 117: FY '03 War Suppl. - Aircraft Missile Def. 118: FY '03 War Suppl. - Ind. Member Projects 119: FY '03 War Suppl. - Counterterror Funding 120: FY '03 War Suppl. - Homeland Security 121: FY 2003 War Supplemental - War Costs 122: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding 123: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding 124: FY '03 War Suppl. - Iraqi Food Assistance 125: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Passage 126: Carney Nomination - Confirmation 132: Protections for Children - Conf. Report 133: Swimmer Nomination - Confirmation 135: Sutton Nomination - Confirmation 139: Cook Nomination - Confirmation 140: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 141: Altonaga Nomination - Confirmation 145: FISA Warrants - Feinstein Substitute 146: FISA Warrants - Passage 147: Tax Reductions - On-Budget Surplus 181: Global AIDS Relief - Drug Pricing 182: Global AIDS Relief - AIDS Orphans 183: Global AIDS Relief - Aid to Carib. Nations 184: Hicks Nomination - Confirmation 185: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Reservist Health Care 186: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 187: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 188: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 180: Global AIDS Relief - Abstinence Programs 189: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Penetrator Weapons 192: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Overseas Abortions 193: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Defense Contracts 194: FY 2004 Defense Authorization - Passage 195: Callahan Nomination - Confirmation 202: Debt Limit Increase - Passage 203: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 204: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 205: FY 2004 Defense Authoriz. - Base Closures 206: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 211: Chertoff Nomination - Confirmation 216: Greer Nomination - Confirmation 217: Kravitz Nomination - Confirmation 218: Energy Policy - Energy Commodity Trading 219: Energy Policy - Indian Energy Projects 220: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage 223: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Pilot Age Requirements 224: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Foreign Repair Stations 225: FY 2004 FAA Reauthorization - Passage 226: Pate Nomination - Confirmation 227: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Within Medicare 228: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Disclosure 229: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Cap 230: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Patents 231: American History and Civics Academies - Passage 232: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Importation 233: Prescription Drug Benefit - Third-Party Coverage 234: Prescription Drug Benefit - Open Enrollment Period 235: Prescription Drug Benefit - Canadian Price Equity 236: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost Sharing Extension 237: Prescription Drug Benefit - Congressional Coverage 238: Prescription Drug Benefit - Two-Year Fallback Plan 239: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Availability 240: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Coverage 241: Prescription Drug Benefit - Employer Compensation 242: Prescription Drug Benefit - Health Centers 243: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements 244: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction 245: Prescription Drug Benefit - Durbin Substitute 246: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost-Effectiveness Studies 247: Prescription Drug Benefit - Disability Services 248: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements 249: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Care 250: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Patient Coverage 251: Prescription Drug Benefit - Asset Test 252: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alzheimer's Subsidy 253: Prescription Drug Benefit - Additional Disease Treatment 254: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction 255: Prescription Drug Benefit - Experimental Drug Coverage 257: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Coverage 258: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medigap Policies 259: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Fallback Plan 260: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alternative Plan 261: Prescription Drug Benefit - Means Test 262: Prescription Drug Benefit - Passage 263: Campbell Nomination - Confirmation 264: Medical Malpractice - Cloture 256: Prescription Drug Benefit - Immigrant Coverage 265: Wolski Nomination - Confirmation 266: Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed 267: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthorization - Mexico City Policy 269: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauth. - Unemployment Insurance 270: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthoriz. - HIV/AIDS Funding 272: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - AmeriCorps 273: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - Passage 274: FY 2004 Military Construction Appropriations - Passage 275: Der-Yeghiayan Nomination - Confirmation 276: Suko Nomination - Confirmation 277: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Troop Deployments 278: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Cost of Iraq Operations 279: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Detainees 280: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage 281: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraq War Costs 282: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Health Care 283: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraqi Reconstruction 284: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Iraqi Intel. Commission 285: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Unauthorized Approp.s 286: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Overseas Military Funding 287: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Intelligence Funding 288: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - HIV/AIDS Funding 289: Duncan Nomination - Confirmation 290: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Passage 291: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Approp.s Increase 292: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Law Enforcement Costs 293: FY '04 Hom. Sec. Appr. - Emer. Mgmt. Planning Grants 294: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Port Security 295: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Explosive Device 296: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Firefighter Grants 297: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Chemical Plant Sec. 298: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Canadian Border Sec. 299: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr - First Responder Funding 300: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Maritime Security 301: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas 302: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas 303: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Federal Advisory Boards 304: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Transit Security 305: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr.s - Lobbying Restrictions 306: FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations - Passage
08-25-2003 09:52 PM ET (US)
Rove has tactics, one of them will be using the candidate's record. And as record's go how will Kerry address this one? Because you know Rove is already on to it.
Kerry's missed votes (this year 306):
1: Procedural Motion - Adjourn to Time Certain 2: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security 3: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security 4: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Block Grants 5: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Funding 6: FY 2003 Approp.s - Rural Antidrug Program 7: FY 2003 Approp.s - Spending Reinstatement 8: FY 2003 Approp.s - Foreign Cruise Ships 13: Ridge Nomination - Confirmation 14: FY 2003 Approp.s - Unemployment Ins. 15: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief 16: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief 17: FY 2003 Approp.s - African Famine Relief 18: FY 2003 Approp.s - US AirPension Plan 26: FY 2003 Approp.s - Prohibit Quotas for Job Priv. 31: Adams Nomination - Confirmation 32: Otero Nomination - Confirmation 33: Junell Nomination - Confirmation 36: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance 37: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance 39: Pledge of Allegiance - Adoption 44: Frost Nomination - Confirmation 45: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Emer. Contracep.s 46: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception 47: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Motion to Commit 49: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception 50: Quarles Nomination - Confirmation 51: "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban - Passage 52: Varlan Nomination - Confirmation 53: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 55: Breen Nomination - Confirmation 60: FY 2004 Budget Res. - Education Funding 109: Coalition Member Support - Adoption 110: Military Tax Breaks - Passage 111: Selna Nomination - Confirmation 112: Springmann Nomination - Confirmation 114: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 115: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Port Security 116: FY '03 War Supp. - Nat'l. Guard & Reserves 117: FY '03 War Suppl. - Aircraft Missile Def. 118: FY '03 War Suppl. - Ind. Member Projects 119: FY '03 War Suppl. - Counterterror Funding 120: FY '03 War Suppl. - Homeland Security 121: FY 2003 War Supplemental - War Costs 122: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding 123: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding 124: FY '03 War Suppl. - Iraqi Food Assistance 125: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Passage 126: Carney Nomination - Confirmation 132: Protections for Children - Conf. Report 133: Swimmer Nomination - Confirmation 135: Sutton Nomination - Confirmation 139: Cook Nomination - Confirmation 140: Estrada Nomination - Cloture 141: Altonaga Nomination - Confirmation 145: FISA Warrants - Feinstein Substitute 146: FISA Warrants - Passage 147: Tax Reductions - On-Budget Surplus 181: Global AIDS Relief - Drug Pricing 182: Global AIDS Relief - AIDS Orphans 183: Global AIDS Relief - Aid to Carib. Nations 184: Hicks Nomination - Confirmation 185: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Reservist Health Care 186: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 187: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 188: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study 180: Global AIDS Relief - Abstinence Programs 189: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Penetrator Weapons 192: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Overseas Abortions 193: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Defense Contracts 194: FY 2004 Defense Authorization - Passage 195: Callahan Nomination - Confirmation 202: Debt Limit Increase - Passage 203: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 204: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 205: FY 2004 Defense Authoriz. - Base Closures 206: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion 211: Chertoff Nomination - Confirmation 216: Greer Nomination - Confirmation 217: Kravitz Nomination - Confirmation 218: Energy Policy - Energy Commodity Trading 219: Energy Policy - Indian Energy Projects 220: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage 223: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Pilot Age Requirements 224: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Foreign Repair Stations 225: FY 2004 FAA Reauthorization - Passage 226: Pate Nomination - Confirmation 227: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Within Medicare 228: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Disclosure 229: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Cap 230: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Patents 231: American History and Civics Academies - Passage 232: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Importation 233: Prescription Drug Benefit - Third-Party Coverage 234: Prescription Drug Benefit - Open Enrollment Period 235: Prescription Drug Benefit - Canadian Price Equity 236: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost Sharing Extension 237: Prescription Drug Benefit - Congressional Coverage 238: Prescription Drug Benefit - Two-Year Fallback Plan 239: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Availability 240: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Coverage 241: Prescription Drug Benefit - Employer Compensation 242: Prescription Drug Benefit - Health Centers 243: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements 244: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction 245: Prescription Drug Benefit - Durbin Substitute 246: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost-Effectiveness Studies 247: Prescription Drug Benefit - Disability Services 248: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements 249: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Care 250: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Patient Coverage 251: Prescription Drug Benefit - Asset Test 252: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alzheimer's Subsidy 253: Prescription Drug Benefit - Additional Disease Treatment 254: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction 255: Prescription Drug Benefit - Experimental Drug Coverage 257: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Coverage 258: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medigap Policies 259: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Fallback Plan 260: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alternative Plan 261: Prescription Drug Benefit - Means Test 262: Prescription Drug Benefit - Passage 263: Campbell Nomination - Confirmation 264: Medical Malpractice - Cloture 256: Prescription Drug Benefit - Immigrant Coverage 265: Wolski Nomination - Confirmation 266: Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed 267: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthorization - Mexico City Policy 269: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauth. - Unemployment Insurance 270: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthoriz. - HIV/AIDS Funding 272: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - AmeriCorps 273: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - Passage 274: FY 2004 Military Construction Appropriations - Passage 275: Der-Yeghiayan Nomination - Confirmation 276: Suko Nomination - Confirmation 277: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Troop Deployments 278: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Cost of Iraq Operations 279: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Detainees 280: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage 281: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraq War Costs 282: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Health Care 283: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraqi Reconstruction 284: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Iraqi Intel. Commission 285: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Unauthorized Approp.s 286: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Overseas Military Funding 287: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Intelligence Funding 288: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - HIV/AIDS Funding 289: Duncan Nomination - Confirmation 290: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Passage 291: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Approp.s Increase 292: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Law Enforcement Costs 293: FY '04 Hom. Sec. Appr. - Emer. Mgmt. Planning Grants 294: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Port Security 295: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Explosive Device 296: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Firefighter Grants 297: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Chemical Plant Sec. 298: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Canadian Border Sec. 299: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr - First Responder Funding 300: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Maritime Security 301: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas 302: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas 303: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Federal Advisory Boards 304: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Transit Security 305: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr.s - Lobbying Restrictions 306: FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations - Passage
Charles in Montana 813
08-25-2003 11:27 PM ET (US)
Lysa, Ann, You are both so charming. Thanks for putting up with my posts.
08-25-2003 11:27 PM ET (US)
Lysa, Ann, You are both so charming. Thanks for putting up with my posts.
doug in indiana 814
08-26-2003 12:47 AM ET (US)
Big Jump In Outlays Shows 'Era Of Big Gov't' Isn't Over
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a syndicated columnist and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
We have finally stopped paying for government this year, but just barely. And if the Bush administration has its way, Americans will pay a lot more next year.
Never mind his rhetoric: President Bush is an enthusiastic advocate of big government.
The advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform figures the Cost of Government Day was July 11. That's when U.S. citizens finally finished subsidizing government at all levels: taxes, deficits and regulations.
Americans spent more than half the year, 193 days, working for politicians rather than themselves and their families.
Republicans blame the Democrats. It's not true.
The Cost of Government Day generally came earlier on the calendar under President Reagan.
But it rose under the first President Bush, who made his reputation hiking taxes.
Cost of Government Day peaked in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president, and fell eight straight years.
Since 2000, Cost of Government Day has moved later on the calendar by 17 days.
The increase from last year was five days. The increase under the current President Bush is matched only by the rise under his father a decade before.
Fast-Growing Outlays
The principal problem is spending. Outlays are up 13.5% over the last three years.
And not to fight terrorism. Non-defense, discretionary outlays have increased 18%, far more than during the first three years of the Clinton administration.
As my Cato Institute colleague Veronique de Rugy puts it, President Bush "is governing like a Frenchman."
Over the last three years, federal spending increased 2.5 times faster than national income. If outlays had matched national income, the deficit would be only $70 billion, compared to a predicted $475 billion this year.
But because of Washington's spending frenzy, the deficit will total $1.9 trillion over the next five years.
Yet on Capitol Hill, the administration is worried about too little, not too much, spending.
When the bloated Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill came before the House in early July, the budget office complained:
* Spending on Pell Grants to subsidize college was $465 million lower than requested.
* The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which supplements a score of other welfare programs, was $200 million short of the administration's desire.
* Congress didn't give the administration everything that it wanted for a herd of special interest education programs.
* Congress didn't spend enough on drug treatment, HIV/AIDS programs, child mentoring initiatives, or parental group homes.
* Congress cut the administration's request for paid volunteerism through AmeriCorps.
* There wasn't enough money for health programs or the Social Security Administration.
Not one objection concerned a proposal to spend too much money.
Even worse is the proposed Medicare drug benefit.
Pegged at a 10-year cost of $400 billion, the real increase in the government's $13 trillion unfunded liability would be about $6 trillion under the House bill.
At its worst, the Senate's measure might almost double that liability.
But no one takes the $400 billion estimate seriously.
For one thing, that number stops before the baby-boom wave starts retiring, after which costs will explode.
Equally important, federal benefits always lift demand for subsidized services, and election-minded politicians always raise benefits.
Every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate.
Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.
In 1935, a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is almost as enthusiastic about regulating as spending.
Analyst Clyde Wayne Crews reports in his annual "Ten Thousand Commandments" that last year the Federal Register devoted 75,606 pages to regulations, more than in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in office.
The number of rules was down, but even so, economists W. Mark Crain and Thomas D. Hopkins figure regulations cost the U.S. economy $860 billion annually.
Regulatory growth follows the same general pattern as do outlays. Most recently, it started rising in 2001, the year President Bush took office, and sped ahead in 2002.
The administration points to its anti-terrorism efforts. But the torrent of new rules has come from the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and Agriculture Department, as well as the Treasury and Transportation Departments.
Despite his pretense of being a conservative, President Bush actually represents the old conservative U.S. Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, which avidly supported the ever-growing welfare-warfare state.
The president is for tax cuts, yes, but advocates increased government spending on just about every government program.
Costly Foreign Affairs
His foreign policy is based on massive government: War around the globe; lengthy occupations and attempts at nation building; increased foreign aid and international social engineering.
His domestic program is equally expansive, with more money for education, health care, Medicare, national service, welfare, and more.
How much will Americans have to pay for government next year?
It certainly will be more than this year. Everyone in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, are now for bigger government.
This article was published in Investor's Business Daily, Aug. 5, 2003.
08-26-2003 12:47 AM ET (US)
Big Jump In Outlays Shows 'Era Of Big Gov't' Isn't Over
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a syndicated columnist and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
We have finally stopped paying for government this year, but just barely. And if the Bush administration has its way, Americans will pay a lot more next year.
Never mind his rhetoric: President Bush is an enthusiastic advocate of big government.
The advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform figures the Cost of Government Day was July 11. That's when U.S. citizens finally finished subsidizing government at all levels: taxes, deficits and regulations.
Americans spent more than half the year, 193 days, working for politicians rather than themselves and their families.
Republicans blame the Democrats. It's not true.
The Cost of Government Day generally came earlier on the calendar under President Reagan.
But it rose under the first President Bush, who made his reputation hiking taxes.
Cost of Government Day peaked in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president, and fell eight straight years.
Since 2000, Cost of Government Day has moved later on the calendar by 17 days.
The increase from last year was five days. The increase under the current President Bush is matched only by the rise under his father a decade before.
Fast-Growing Outlays
The principal problem is spending. Outlays are up 13.5% over the last three years.
And not to fight terrorism. Non-defense, discretionary outlays have increased 18%, far more than during the first three years of the Clinton administration.
As my Cato Institute colleague Veronique de Rugy puts it, President Bush "is governing like a Frenchman."
Over the last three years, federal spending increased 2.5 times faster than national income. If outlays had matched national income, the deficit would be only $70 billion, compared to a predicted $475 billion this year.
But because of Washington's spending frenzy, the deficit will total $1.9 trillion over the next five years.
Yet on Capitol Hill, the administration is worried about too little, not too much, spending.
When the bloated Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill came before the House in early July, the budget office complained:
* Spending on Pell Grants to subsidize college was $465 million lower than requested.
* The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which supplements a score of other welfare programs, was $200 million short of the administration's desire.
* Congress didn't give the administration everything that it wanted for a herd of special interest education programs.
* Congress didn't spend enough on drug treatment, HIV/AIDS programs, child mentoring initiatives, or parental group homes.
* Congress cut the administration's request for paid volunteerism through AmeriCorps.
* There wasn't enough money for health programs or the Social Security Administration.
Not one objection concerned a proposal to spend too much money.
Even worse is the proposed Medicare drug benefit.
Pegged at a 10-year cost of $400 billion, the real increase in the government's $13 trillion unfunded liability would be about $6 trillion under the House bill.
At its worst, the Senate's measure might almost double that liability.
But no one takes the $400 billion estimate seriously.
For one thing, that number stops before the baby-boom wave starts retiring, after which costs will explode.
Equally important, federal benefits always lift demand for subsidized services, and election-minded politicians always raise benefits.
Every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate.
Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.
In 1935, a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is almost as enthusiastic about regulating as spending.
Analyst Clyde Wayne Crews reports in his annual "Ten Thousand Commandments" that last year the Federal Register devoted 75,606 pages to regulations, more than in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in office.
The number of rules was down, but even so, economists W. Mark Crain and Thomas D. Hopkins figure regulations cost the U.S. economy $860 billion annually.
Regulatory growth follows the same general pattern as do outlays. Most recently, it started rising in 2001, the year President Bush took office, and sped ahead in 2002.
The administration points to its anti-terrorism efforts. But the torrent of new rules has come from the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and Agriculture Department, as well as the Treasury and Transportation Departments.
Despite his pretense of being a conservative, President Bush actually represents the old conservative U.S. Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, which avidly supported the ever-growing welfare-warfare state.
The president is for tax cuts, yes, but advocates increased government spending on just about every government program.
Costly Foreign Affairs
His foreign policy is based on massive government: War around the globe; lengthy occupations and attempts at nation building; increased foreign aid and international social engineering.
His domestic program is equally expansive, with more money for education, health care, Medicare, national service, welfare, and more.
How much will Americans have to pay for government next year?
It certainly will be more than this year. Everyone in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, are now for bigger government.
This article was published in Investor's Business Daily, Aug. 5, 2003.
Patti Ferschke 815
08-26-2003 01:38 AM ET (US)
DEREK,you are so right,and after today the real leader has stood up up! I think I'll need to treat you all to the Senator's new book,"VISION FOR AMERICA" due out OCT 16th...It"IS" The vision thing soon to be un-leashed.CA-ching !!
08-26-2003 01:38 AM ET (US)
DEREK,you are so right,and after today the real leader has stood up up! I think I'll need to treat you all to the Senator's new book,"VISION FOR AMERICA" due out OCT 16th...It"IS" The vision thing soon to be un-leashed.CA-ching !!
Lysa 816
08-26-2003 02:37 AM ET (US)
:) Charles nothing to put up with, they are Great! Thank you, Doug for the Cato article on big business.
08-26-2003 02:37 AM ET (US)
:) Charles nothing to put up with, they are Great! Thank you, Doug for the Cato article on big business.
Keith Brekhus 817
08-26-2003 10:07 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-26-2003 10:10 AM
Bush to run for president with $500 billion deficit
The CBO is predicting a $500 billion deficit in 2004, following its prediction of the record-shattering $401 billion shortfall this year. Neither of those numbers include the $4-5 billion a month or so spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. (which would bring the shortfall to around 550 billion).
And the deficit is twice as big if the social security surplus isn't factored in.
The Budget Committee said their analysis shows that the deficit will hit $495 billion in 2004, and will never go below $300 billion in the 2004-2013 period, reaching a total over the decade of $3.7 trillion.
If money from the Social Security surpluses now being used to pay for other federal programs is not factored in, the decade-long deficit will be $6.3 trillion.
The CBO numbers ... do not take into account the $1.2 trillion that will be lost if tax cuts scheduled to expire over the next decade are made permanent, and another $878 billion in new tax cuts over the decade being sought by the White House.
Boy, we're going to see some nice, shiny charts in this election cycle. I look forward to seeing Bush defend his borrow and spend stewardship of the budget.
{information for this can be found at daily kos web blog--I edited the text there for clarity}.
08-26-2003 10:07 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-26-2003 10:10 AM
Bush to run for president with $500 billion deficit
The CBO is predicting a $500 billion deficit in 2004, following its prediction of the record-shattering $401 billion shortfall this year. Neither of those numbers include the $4-5 billion a month or so spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. (which would bring the shortfall to around 550 billion).
And the deficit is twice as big if the social security surplus isn't factored in.
The Budget Committee said their analysis shows that the deficit will hit $495 billion in 2004, and will never go below $300 billion in the 2004-2013 period, reaching a total over the decade of $3.7 trillion.
If money from the Social Security surpluses now being used to pay for other federal programs is not factored in, the decade-long deficit will be $6.3 trillion.
The CBO numbers ... do not take into account the $1.2 trillion that will be lost if tax cuts scheduled to expire over the next decade are made permanent, and another $878 billion in new tax cuts over the decade being sought by the White House.
Boy, we're going to see some nice, shiny charts in this election cycle. I look forward to seeing Bush defend his borrow and spend stewardship of the budget.
{information for this can be found at daily kos web blog--I edited the text there for clarity}.
Keith Brekhus 818
08-26-2003 01:18 PM ET (US)
Seven Lies Bush told us about Iraq.........
1. Bush said Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He was not.
2. he said Saddam sat on massive caches of weapons of mass destruction, which he was ready to employ at a moment's notice. He apparently did not and he obviously was not (or he would surely have used them when the "infidels" hit his soil).
3.He said regime change would be a cakewalk. It was for two weeks -- during which time the administration naturally showed the tastelessness to gloat about it -- but it sure isn't now.
4. He said our soldiers would be greeted as liberators. They were for about two days; now they're "greeted" as occupiers.
5. He said we had a solid postwar plan. We didn't.
6. He said toppling Hussein would hem in terrorism. Instead, for now at least, terrorism has spread, as extremists of all stripes swarm into Iraq, where our soldiers are paying the price.
7.He said the death of Hussein's sons would slow the bloodletting. Instead the violence against our soldiers has increased since they died.
08-26-2003 01:18 PM ET (US)
Seven Lies Bush told us about Iraq.........
1. Bush said Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He was not.
2. he said Saddam sat on massive caches of weapons of mass destruction, which he was ready to employ at a moment's notice. He apparently did not and he obviously was not (or he would surely have used them when the "infidels" hit his soil).
3.He said regime change would be a cakewalk. It was for two weeks -- during which time the administration naturally showed the tastelessness to gloat about it -- but it sure isn't now.
4. He said our soldiers would be greeted as liberators. They were for about two days; now they're "greeted" as occupiers.
5. He said we had a solid postwar plan. We didn't.
6. He said toppling Hussein would hem in terrorism. Instead, for now at least, terrorism has spread, as extremists of all stripes swarm into Iraq, where our soldiers are paying the price.
7.He said the death of Hussein's sons would slow the bloodletting. Instead the violence against our soldiers has increased since they died.
Ann Stewart 820
08-26-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)
Ok ladies or gay men, because my site will never discriminate against gays, tell me why you are in love with your candidate? Why do you love him so much? What is it about him that makes you believe he is the man that should be honored and adored? Why do you want him to be President? What has he done that is so special to you that you just can’t get enough of him?
Ladies and gay men all comments will be used to build a website for your candidates with your comments beside his picture. So make the comments good. Tell me all about the man you love and why. Please go to my blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com and tell me your answers.
Somehow I get the impression Patti and Ellen is in love with Kerry, also Lysa and Alison is in love with Dean, and I what to know why?
08-26-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)
Ok ladies or gay men, because my site will never discriminate against gays, tell me why you are in love with your candidate? Why do you love him so much? What is it about him that makes you believe he is the man that should be honored and adored? Why do you want him to be President? What has he done that is so special to you that you just can’t get enough of him?
Ladies and gay men all comments will be used to build a website for your candidates with your comments beside his picture. So make the comments good. Tell me all about the man you love and why. Please go to my blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com and tell me your answers.
Somehow I get the impression Patti and Ellen is in love with Kerry, also Lysa and Alison is in love with Dean, and I what to know why?
Keith Brekhus 821
08-26-2003 04:14 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann,
I understand that your question is meant in good fun, but I do hope you are not implying that Patti, Ellen, Lysa or Allison's passion for their respective candidates has anything to do with romatic attraction.
I would imagine they, like myself, are selecting candidates based on who they feel would be best for the nation and not which one would make the best date.
I like Howard Dean as a candidate, because I think he is the best equipped to turn the country around and reverse the policies that Bush has put into place that I disagree with.
Now feel free to have fun with Ann's question people...I don't want to be so "politcally correct" as to stifle creative responses...I just wanted to make sure it isn't implied that women (or gay men) are somehow more prone to use "love" as a criteria for selecting their candidates than heterosexual men.
I don't think Ann was implying that, by the way, but a person might read it that way if they weren't familar with the open and creative discussions this site always provides.
08-26-2003 04:14 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann,
I understand that your question is meant in good fun, but I do hope you are not implying that Patti, Ellen, Lysa or Allison's passion for their respective candidates has anything to do with romatic attraction.
I would imagine they, like myself, are selecting candidates based on who they feel would be best for the nation and not which one would make the best date.
I like Howard Dean as a candidate, because I think he is the best equipped to turn the country around and reverse the policies that Bush has put into place that I disagree with.
Now feel free to have fun with Ann's question people...I don't want to be so "politcally correct" as to stifle creative responses...I just wanted to make sure it isn't implied that women (or gay men) are somehow more prone to use "love" as a criteria for selecting their candidates than heterosexual men.
I don't think Ann was implying that, by the way, but a person might read it that way if they weren't familar with the open and creative discussions this site always provides.
Ann Stewart 822
08-26-2003 04:43 PM ET (US)
Yes I know what you mean Keith. I'm just playing a little game with the ladies. It has often been said women fall in love with Presidents and I want to know why. It's kinda just a fun game I do sometimes on my blog where we talk about why we love men.
I know the issues are the most important things of all in the election. I take it very seriously. I just wanted to do a site on why women love the Candidates mostly, but I don’t want to be seemly prejudice against gay men.
The other day on a discussion line Sindhu, Becky, Vanessa, Jennifer and I wore kinda fight over who was the most handsome. Of course Becky, Jennifer and Vanessa thought Bush was the most handsome. Sindhu and I said Dean was the most handsome. We kinda fought over who we thought was the most handsome. Women are like that sometimes, but I joked about throughing the issue’s out the window and just voting for the most handsome man. So I wanted to do a site kinda like the one I did for Favorite News Men at http://favoritenewsman.4t.com Just for the ladies I ask you who do you think is the most handsome or who do you love the most and why? It’s just kinda what People Magazine would do for a woman’s opinion poll or something.
08-26-2003 04:43 PM ET (US)
Yes I know what you mean Keith. I'm just playing a little game with the ladies. It has often been said women fall in love with Presidents and I want to know why. It's kinda just a fun game I do sometimes on my blog where we talk about why we love men.
I know the issues are the most important things of all in the election. I take it very seriously. I just wanted to do a site on why women love the Candidates mostly, but I don’t want to be seemly prejudice against gay men.
The other day on a discussion line Sindhu, Becky, Vanessa, Jennifer and I wore kinda fight over who was the most handsome. Of course Becky, Jennifer and Vanessa thought Bush was the most handsome. Sindhu and I said Dean was the most handsome. We kinda fought over who we thought was the most handsome. Women are like that sometimes, but I joked about throughing the issue’s out the window and just voting for the most handsome man. So I wanted to do a site kinda like the one I did for Favorite News Men at http://favoritenewsman.4t.com Just for the ladies I ask you who do you think is the most handsome or who do you love the most and why? It’s just kinda what People Magazine would do for a woman’s opinion poll or something.
Keith Brekhus 823
08-26-2003 05:06 PM ET (US)
I think John Edwards would probably win as most handsome of the announced candidates, But Dean and Bush would be in the running.
Gephardt isn't bad. Lieberman and Kerry not so handsome but at least Kerry is tall if thats your thing.
Kucinich look like an angry elf with bad fashion sense, and Sharpton looks like a black preacher (well he is one) which isn't a bad look really--it works for me.
Graham isn't attractive either--kind of old and funny looking, and well Moseley-Braun won't ever be on Sports Illustrateds Swimsuit cover but she is a woman so she would have to get my vote over Edwards :-).
08-26-2003 05:06 PM ET (US)
I think John Edwards would probably win as most handsome of the announced candidates, But Dean and Bush would be in the running.
Gephardt isn't bad. Lieberman and Kerry not so handsome but at least Kerry is tall if thats your thing.
Kucinich look like an angry elf with bad fashion sense, and Sharpton looks like a black preacher (well he is one) which isn't a bad look really--it works for me.
Graham isn't attractive either--kind of old and funny looking, and well Moseley-Braun won't ever be on Sports Illustrateds Swimsuit cover but she is a woman so she would have to get my vote over Edwards :-).
Ann Stewart 824
08-26-2003 05:21 PM ET (US)
You know Time magazine said in a report that Edwards was to Pretty to be President. It's sad with looks count against you in a race like this. You can end up being to pretty to be President I guess. No body will vote for a pretty boy.
08-26-2003 05:21 PM ET (US)
You know Time magazine said in a report that Edwards was to Pretty to be President. It's sad with looks count against you in a race like this. You can end up being to pretty to be President I guess. No body will vote for a pretty boy.
Keith Brekhus 825
08-26-2003 05:38 PM ET (US)
I think the baby face hurts Edwards a little. He looks too young for some to appear "presidential". In four to eight years though he should have enough gray hairs to have a frosted, dignified statesman look. Then the press will compare him to a Kennedy, and heaven help his balding opponents when the TV cameras roll.
08-26-2003 05:38 PM ET (US)
I think the baby face hurts Edwards a little. He looks too young for some to appear "presidential". In four to eight years though he should have enough gray hairs to have a frosted, dignified statesman look. Then the press will compare him to a Kennedy, and heaven help his balding opponents when the TV cameras roll.
Ann Stewart 826
08-26-2003 06:02 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-26-2003 06:03 PM
That is so true, but Ann Richardson stated on Larry King Live she thought Dean was handsome. Sometimes I hate to say it, because I know It is not fair that women will vote for a man they are infatuated with. Like I think Jenny is infatuated with George W. Bush. So I thought maybe Patti was infatuated with Kerry. Sometimes women won’t admit it, but I think it is true. I’m a little infatuated with Dean and I love Doctors. So there I admitted it.
08-26-2003 06:02 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-26-2003 06:03 PM
That is so true, but Ann Richardson stated on Larry King Live she thought Dean was handsome. Sometimes I hate to say it, because I know It is not fair that women will vote for a man they are infatuated with. Like I think Jenny is infatuated with George W. Bush. So I thought maybe Patti was infatuated with Kerry. Sometimes women won’t admit it, but I think it is true. I’m a little infatuated with Dean and I love Doctors. So there I admitted it.
Ann Stewart 827
08-26-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)
Keith I posted your comments on my news blog to explain the reasoning behind the comment contest. It's at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com go check it out if you get the time Keith and that's for everyone else too.
08-26-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)
Keith I posted your comments on my news blog to explain the reasoning behind the comment contest. It's at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com go check it out if you get the time Keith and that's for everyone else too.
Keith Brekhus 828
08-26-2003 08:10 PM ET (US)
Well I do know someone at my office who claims she "loved" Jimmy Carter, and no doubt John Kennedy probably beat Nixon just because he was a better looker.
On the other hand, it is also true that when a lot of guys voted for George Dubya Bush or Jesse Ventura or Ronald Reagan or Schwarzenegger, they are in love too, in sort of vicarious infatuation with identifying with a cowboy, macho man, winner, or super hero. I know some heterosexual men who got "goosebumps" when they saw Bush in his flight jumpsuit on May 1st, odd as that sounds.
Some women may be infatuated with individual candidates, but for each of them there may be a man out there who idolizes a candidate for mostly non-political policy related reasons as well.
Then again, since many people are infatuated with actors and actresses, athletes, musicians, and so on, it probably is no harm to admit one has a crush on a political candidate either--after all they are celebrities too :-).
08-26-2003 08:10 PM ET (US)
Well I do know someone at my office who claims she "loved" Jimmy Carter, and no doubt John Kennedy probably beat Nixon just because he was a better looker.
On the other hand, it is also true that when a lot of guys voted for George Dubya Bush or Jesse Ventura or Ronald Reagan or Schwarzenegger, they are in love too, in sort of vicarious infatuation with identifying with a cowboy, macho man, winner, or super hero. I know some heterosexual men who got "goosebumps" when they saw Bush in his flight jumpsuit on May 1st, odd as that sounds.
Some women may be infatuated with individual candidates, but for each of them there may be a man out there who idolizes a candidate for mostly non-political policy related reasons as well.
Then again, since many people are infatuated with actors and actresses, athletes, musicians, and so on, it probably is no harm to admit one has a crush on a political candidate either--after all they are celebrities too :-).
Keith Brekhus 829
08-26-2003 08:17 PM ET (US)
By the way Ann,
I have explored much of your site and enjoy every thread on it. You are a very good moderator, and the respect with which you treat others carries over quite well. I hardly ever see divisive threads and inapporpriate name calling on here---passionate differences and deriding certain candidates--yes, but not very many personal attacks between posters.
I think that is a credit to how well you express yourself,and how you respond to the communication you receive. this is a nice site all the way around, and I am sure I speak for most, if not all, of your visitors when I say you have done a great job with it.
08-26-2003 08:17 PM ET (US)
By the way Ann,
I have explored much of your site and enjoy every thread on it. You are a very good moderator, and the respect with which you treat others carries over quite well. I hardly ever see divisive threads and inapporpriate name calling on here---passionate differences and deriding certain candidates--yes, but not very many personal attacks between posters.
I think that is a credit to how well you express yourself,and how you respond to the communication you receive. this is a nice site all the way around, and I am sure I speak for most, if not all, of your visitors when I say you have done a great job with it.
Keith Brekhus 830
08-26-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)
Regarding the electability of the leading Democrats, here is my state-by-state assessment in the swing states. I was charitable to Kerry in Florida by rating his chances as equal so that all candidates had a scenario where they cleared 270 electoral votes (in my original analysis I had Kerry with a (-) but since I think he is one of the two strongest candidates nationally {along with Dean} he should have a winning scenario that is readily visible and it includes Florida).
The Dirty dozen swing states and the top five candidates (my best guess):
a (+) means they beat Bush, a (-) Bush carries, (=) is toss-up. Double (++) and triple mark-ups (+++) for bigger advantage or disadvantage.
States Gore carried:
Iowa (7)- Gephardt (++) Dean (+) Kerry (=) Clark (=) Lieberman (-)
Wisconsin (10)- Dean (+) Gephardt (+) Kerry (+) Lieberman (+) Clark (=)
Minnesota (10)- Dean (++) Gephardt (+) Clark (+) Kerry (=) Lieberman (-)
New Mexico (5)- Dean (+) Clark (+) Gephardt (+) Lieberman (+) Kerry (-)
Pennsylvania (21)- Kerry (++) Lieberman (+) Gephardt (+) Dean (+) Clark (=)
Oregon (7)- Dean (++) Kerry (+) Clark (+) Gephardt (=) Lieberman (=)
Maine (4)- Dean (++) Kerry (++) Lieberman (+) Clark (=) Gephardt (-)
States Bush carried:
Florida (27)- Clark (+) Lieberman (+) Kerry (=) Gephardt (-) Dean (---)
New Hampshire (4)- Dean (+++) Kerry (+++) Clark (=) Lieberman (=) Gephardt (=)
West Virginia (5)- Clark (++) Gephardt (++) Lieberman (=) Dean (=) Kerry (-)
Nevada (5)- Clark (=) Dean (=) Lieberman (-) Gephardt (-) Kerry (-)
Arkasas (6)- Clark (+++) Gephardt (=) Dean (-) Lieberman (--) Kerry (--)
Other Gore states that might be tough to hold
Michigan (18) (all Democrats should carry, but Lieberman rated only (=))
Vermont (3) (all should hold, a give me for Dean or Kerry)
Washington (11)(all should hold)
All other Gore states should be "safe". (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI)
Other Bush states that Bush should win but that MIGHT be competitive:
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Louisiana (9)
Missouri (11) Gephardt gets (=) rating here instead of losing
Ohio (20) even here Gephardt might be in play, will call him (=) though that may be generous.
Tennessee (11)
Virginia (13)
I'll leave off California as a shot for the Republicans or Montana as a chance for the Democrats--if either state is in play the general election will be a landslide for the party attempting to reclaim the state.
These Bush states are not in play (AL, AK, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SD, TX, UT, WY)
Electoral Votes?
Clark 256-339
Gephardt 254-302
Dean 264-274
Lieberman 245-286
Kerry 241-286
Of course, this is based on speculation and assumes my assessment of the candidates chances in the swing states is accurate. Also it should be noted that this assumes a competitive race nationally...a slight shift towards the Democrats (i,e- even a modest 53-47 break) and they win big, a slight shift the other way and we lose big. Individual candidates can make taht shift happen through brilliance or blunders.
I think each candidate has areas of strengths and weaknesses and I think the bottom line is each of the candidate's mentioned can win, but which states are targeted will depend upon the candidate. However, I think the geographical demographics of the electorate aren't particularily favorable to Kerry, but bode well for Clark, all other things being equal.
Clark could run strong in the border states and South but hold on in the Upper Midwest, Northeast and West Coast.
Gephardt could be strong in border states and industrial states and could steal either Missouri or Ohio from the GOP.
Dean has potentail appeal in the West and should pick up NH. He also is less vulnerable to a Green challenge making him safer in Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon than the other Democrats.
Lieberman has a good shot at carrying Florida, but could falter in states like Michigan and Minnesota, offsetting his advantage.
Kerry has the toughest geographical challenge, but his road to victory would probably require either carrying Florida off the vote of Seniors or pulling Ohio if the economy is still sluggish.
08-26-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)
Regarding the electability of the leading Democrats, here is my state-by-state assessment in the swing states. I was charitable to Kerry in Florida by rating his chances as equal so that all candidates had a scenario where they cleared 270 electoral votes (in my original analysis I had Kerry with a (-) but since I think he is one of the two strongest candidates nationally {along with Dean} he should have a winning scenario that is readily visible and it includes Florida).
The Dirty dozen swing states and the top five candidates (my best guess):
a (+) means they beat Bush, a (-) Bush carries, (=) is toss-up. Double (++) and triple mark-ups (+++) for bigger advantage or disadvantage.
States Gore carried:
Iowa (7)- Gephardt (++) Dean (+) Kerry (=) Clark (=) Lieberman (-)
Wisconsin (10)- Dean (+) Gephardt (+) Kerry (+) Lieberman (+) Clark (=)
Minnesota (10)- Dean (++) Gephardt (+) Clark (+) Kerry (=) Lieberman (-)
New Mexico (5)- Dean (+) Clark (+) Gephardt (+) Lieberman (+) Kerry (-)
Pennsylvania (21)- Kerry (++) Lieberman (+) Gephardt (+) Dean (+) Clark (=)
Oregon (7)- Dean (++) Kerry (+) Clark (+) Gephardt (=) Lieberman (=)
Maine (4)- Dean (++) Kerry (++) Lieberman (+) Clark (=) Gephardt (-)
States Bush carried:
Florida (27)- Clark (+) Lieberman (+) Kerry (=) Gephardt (-) Dean (---)
New Hampshire (4)- Dean (+++) Kerry (+++) Clark (=) Lieberman (=) Gephardt (=)
West Virginia (5)- Clark (++) Gephardt (++) Lieberman (=) Dean (=) Kerry (-)
Nevada (5)- Clark (=) Dean (=) Lieberman (-) Gephardt (-) Kerry (-)
Arkasas (6)- Clark (+++) Gephardt (=) Dean (-) Lieberman (--) Kerry (--)
Other Gore states that might be tough to hold
Michigan (18) (all Democrats should carry, but Lieberman rated only (=))
Vermont (3) (all should hold, a give me for Dean or Kerry)
Washington (11)(all should hold)
All other Gore states should be "safe". (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI)
Other Bush states that Bush should win but that MIGHT be competitive:
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Louisiana (9)
Missouri (11) Gephardt gets (=) rating here instead of losing
Ohio (20) even here Gephardt might be in play, will call him (=) though that may be generous.
Tennessee (11)
Virginia (13)
I'll leave off California as a shot for the Republicans or Montana as a chance for the Democrats--if either state is in play the general election will be a landslide for the party attempting to reclaim the state.
These Bush states are not in play (AL, AK, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SD, TX, UT, WY)
Electoral Votes?
Clark 256-339
Gephardt 254-302
Dean 264-274
Lieberman 245-286
Kerry 241-286
Of course, this is based on speculation and assumes my assessment of the candidates chances in the swing states is accurate. Also it should be noted that this assumes a competitive race nationally...a slight shift towards the Democrats (i,e- even a modest 53-47 break) and they win big, a slight shift the other way and we lose big. Individual candidates can make taht shift happen through brilliance or blunders.
I think each candidate has areas of strengths and weaknesses and I think the bottom line is each of the candidate's mentioned can win, but which states are targeted will depend upon the candidate. However, I think the geographical demographics of the electorate aren't particularily favorable to Kerry, but bode well for Clark, all other things being equal.
Clark could run strong in the border states and South but hold on in the Upper Midwest, Northeast and West Coast.
Gephardt could be strong in border states and industrial states and could steal either Missouri or Ohio from the GOP.
Dean has potentail appeal in the West and should pick up NH. He also is less vulnerable to a Green challenge making him safer in Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon than the other Democrats.
Lieberman has a good shot at carrying Florida, but could falter in states like Michigan and Minnesota, offsetting his advantage.
Kerry has the toughest geographical challenge, but his road to victory would probably require either carrying Florida off the vote of Seniors or pulling Ohio if the economy is still sluggish.
Ann Stewart 831
08-26-2003 08:29 PM ET (US)
Keith I loved this comment you just made "I know some heterosexual men who got "goosebumps" when they saw Bush in his flight jumpsuit on May 1st, odd as that sounds." That is so funny. I'm going to post that one too.
You know Keith it's people like you who have made this debate a great place to be. You're awesome dude!!!
08-26-2003 08:29 PM ET (US)
Keith I loved this comment you just made "I know some heterosexual men who got "goosebumps" when they saw Bush in his flight jumpsuit on May 1st, odd as that sounds." That is so funny. I'm going to post that one too.
You know Keith it's people like you who have made this debate a great place to be. You're awesome dude!!!
Wayne in Missouri 832
08-26-2003 08:31 PM ET (US)
If you like a sense of humor, here's your man (the one who isn't sleeping) ;-)
http://images.deanforamerica.com/media/sleepless/sleepless.html
08-26-2003 08:31 PM ET (US)
If you like a sense of humor, here's your man (the one who isn't sleeping) ;-)
http://images.deanforamerica.com/media/sleepless/sleepless.html
Ann Stewart 833
08-26-2003 09:22 PM ET (US)
Wayne that was kinda cute. I dig the airplane flying around with Dean's head in it. Did the Dean Team put that out?
08-26-2003 09:22 PM ET (US)
Wayne that was kinda cute. I dig the airplane flying around with Dean's head in it. Did the Dean Team put that out?
Wayne in Missouri 834
08-26-2003 10:38 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann,
Yeah, the Dean team put that one out as a whimsical attention grabber. The airplane with Dean's head was my favorite part too.
08-26-2003 10:38 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann,
Yeah, the Dean team put that one out as a whimsical attention grabber. The airplane with Dean's head was my favorite part too.
Patti Ferschke 835
08-26-2003 10:48 PM ET (US)
You guys are GOOFS ! Talk about ignorance! We're talking about our country being at war and our civil liberties. We're talking about our lives being at risk because our CIC won't send more troops to Iraq,because of false pride. We're talking about a plan and a vision for our kids. We're talking about all the lies we have been fed,and no plan! Did you even listen to GWB in St.Louis today? Well ,Johnny and Jane won't be coming home too soon,in other words,because of this idiot's bad judgement,we're stuck!This is an economy he actually planned to go south,all his neo-cons will continue to plague this planet wih more rage...all you can talk about is "fantasy!! I'm outraged to think you don't care about your lives..I happen to care about mine,and I happen to care about who the next CIC is protect my life and my families ! I could give a hoot what they look like ! I think you all had beter take another look and begin to think..it might even be too late come this next election!
08-26-2003 10:48 PM ET (US)
You guys are GOOFS ! Talk about ignorance! We're talking about our country being at war and our civil liberties. We're talking about our lives being at risk because our CIC won't send more troops to Iraq,because of false pride. We're talking about a plan and a vision for our kids. We're talking about all the lies we have been fed,and no plan! Did you even listen to GWB in St.Louis today? Well ,Johnny and Jane won't be coming home too soon,in other words,because of this idiot's bad judgement,we're stuck!This is an economy he actually planned to go south,all his neo-cons will continue to plague this planet wih more rage...all you can talk about is "fantasy!! I'm outraged to think you don't care about your lives..I happen to care about mine,and I happen to care about who the next CIC is protect my life and my families ! I could give a hoot what they look like ! I think you all had beter take another look and begin to think..it might even be too late come this next election!
Ann Stewart 836
08-26-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Ok Patti
So you haven't got a nice thing to say about how handsome Kerry is? Do you think if Kerry was as young as Edwards do you think he would have a chance. It was reported in Time that Edwards was too Pretty to be President you don't have a comment on that?
Maybe I think Kerry is too pretty to be president. And for that matter I'm younger than you. So do you think any women would just vote for a man on how he looks or just a special skill that he may have. Like Dean is a Doctor. I think he would know a lot about improving medical care and I think he's handsome. So what if he was ugly I might vote for him. I'm just saying it has been stated that the way the candidate looks affects how people vote on him just like if he can speak well in public or not will affect how many votes he gets. I personally think if a man looks too good people won't vote for him.
It’s like pretty is out for Presidents, no matter how skilled they are. Personally I think Dean is Handsome and Skilled. How he looks could affect how people vote. It shouldn’t but sometimes it does.
08-26-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Ok Patti
So you haven't got a nice thing to say about how handsome Kerry is? Do you think if Kerry was as young as Edwards do you think he would have a chance. It was reported in Time that Edwards was too Pretty to be President you don't have a comment on that?
Maybe I think Kerry is too pretty to be president. And for that matter I'm younger than you. So do you think any women would just vote for a man on how he looks or just a special skill that he may have. Like Dean is a Doctor. I think he would know a lot about improving medical care and I think he's handsome. So what if he was ugly I might vote for him. I'm just saying it has been stated that the way the candidate looks affects how people vote on him just like if he can speak well in public or not will affect how many votes he gets. I personally think if a man looks too good people won't vote for him.
It’s like pretty is out for Presidents, no matter how skilled they are. Personally I think Dean is Handsome and Skilled. How he looks could affect how people vote. It shouldn’t but sometimes it does.
Keith Brekhus 837
08-26-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Its just a casual little diversion Patti. If you read back far enough you will see that we don't choose our candidate's based on looks.
Since John Kerry has a height advantage over the whole field, he looks Presidential anyway...people like a tall commander and chief..so I wouldn't worry if I were you.
08-26-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Its just a casual little diversion Patti. If you read back far enough you will see that we don't choose our candidate's based on looks.
Since John Kerry has a height advantage over the whole field, he looks Presidential anyway...people like a tall commander and chief..so I wouldn't worry if I were you.
Ann Stewart 838
08-26-2003 11:28 PM ET (US)
If you only love Kerry on the issues and you think he is butt ugly, go to my blog and tell me about how you love him on the issue at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I think special skills, intellagnce, and believes on issues can also make you love a man. I just want to know why you love Kerry to put it on a new website. I want to know from the women.
08-26-2003 11:28 PM ET (US)
If you only love Kerry on the issues and you think he is butt ugly, go to my blog and tell me about how you love him on the issue at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I think special skills, intellagnce, and believes on issues can also make you love a man. I just want to know why you love Kerry to put it on a new website. I want to know from the women.
Lysa 839
08-26-2003 11:29 PM ET (US)
I'm not one to base how I feel about a person on their looks. I agree with Ann and Keith that there are people out there that do. It is imo a valid question just as many of the other questions and discussions posed here are.
Personally I think its great that people think Howard Dean is attractive. All the more reason to move on to more important things. Clark isn't bad looking either come to think of it. Best of all neither of them look snobbish or elitist.
Here's something you can do Patti, like millions of other Americans out there are doing. Write your congresspeople. Write the pResident, Write to newspapers about your outrage. Do it every day.
08-26-2003 11:29 PM ET (US)
I'm not one to base how I feel about a person on their looks. I agree with Ann and Keith that there are people out there that do. It is imo a valid question just as many of the other questions and discussions posed here are.
Personally I think its great that people think Howard Dean is attractive. All the more reason to move on to more important things. Clark isn't bad looking either come to think of it. Best of all neither of them look snobbish or elitist.
Here's something you can do Patti, like millions of other Americans out there are doing. Write your congresspeople. Write the pResident, Write to newspapers about your outrage. Do it every day.
Ann Stewart 840
08-26-2003 11:47 PM ET (US)
Thanks Lysa
Just wanting to make that point, because there are people out there who would or wouldn't vote for a person on their looks. Also there are other things that make a man or candidate attractive such as intelligence, stability, beliefs or how he carries himself like walks talks and moves or whatever. Anything can affect why people vote for a candidate. I just want to know from the women, because I have spoken with other women who think Bush is attractive. So I thought I would make a nice comment page just with the ladies comments on what makes their Candidate the best. It doesn’t have to be on his looks. The question is: Why to you love the guy?
08-26-2003 11:47 PM ET (US)
Thanks Lysa
Just wanting to make that point, because there are people out there who would or wouldn't vote for a person on their looks. Also there are other things that make a man or candidate attractive such as intelligence, stability, beliefs or how he carries himself like walks talks and moves or whatever. Anything can affect why people vote for a candidate. I just want to know from the women, because I have spoken with other women who think Bush is attractive. So I thought I would make a nice comment page just with the ladies comments on what makes their Candidate the best. It doesn’t have to be on his looks. The question is: Why to you love the guy?
Keith Brekhus 841
08-27-2003 12:08 AM ET (US)
Just a teaser from the Blogs tonight. Rumor has it Zogby will release a New Hampshire poll tomorrow showing Dean with an astonishing 21 point lead over Kerry in New Hampshire (38-17%).
I can't confirm this to be true but the blurb was from the NY Times, so barring a typographical error, this could be huge news for team Dean.
08-27-2003 12:08 AM ET (US)
Just a teaser from the Blogs tonight. Rumor has it Zogby will release a New Hampshire poll tomorrow showing Dean with an astonishing 21 point lead over Kerry in New Hampshire (38-17%).
I can't confirm this to be true but the blurb was from the NY Times, so barring a typographical error, this could be huge news for team Dean.
Ann Stewart 842
08-27-2003 12:09 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 12:10 AM
Wow Keith
If so that's big.
Where did you hear that from?
08-27-2003 12:09 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 12:10 AM
Wow Keith
If so that's big.
Where did you hear that from?
Keith Brekhus 843
08-27-2003 12:17 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 12:17 AM
More big news for Dean. It appears he will clear 10 million in fundraising for the quarter...per tomorrow's Washington Post.
Dean to Top $10 Million for Quarter
Democratic candidate Howard Dean, shown at a rally in Chicago, will raise at least $10.3 million this quarter. (Anne Ryan -- AP)
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A03
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who is considering becoming the first Democrat to forgo public financing for a presidential campaign, will raise at least $10.3 million this quarter, his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said yesterday.
Dean led the eight other candidates for the Democratic nomination by raising $7.6 million in the second quarter, and there has been a huge surge in small-dollar contributions to his campaign over the Internet and from more traditional, meet-and-greet fundraising events, Trippi said. Dean is virtually certain to win the money race -- an important measure of a candidate's popularity inside the party -- this quarter, too, according to rival campaigns. The third quarter will end Sept. 30.
But he is also spending money faster than any other candidate. Trippi said Dean will spend $1 million on new ads in key early primary states, including Wisconsin, New Mexico and Washington. By running ads so early in the process, Dean is hoping to build on the buzz surrounding his campaign and generate more money and supporters before rival campaigns get rolling. The other candidates are mostly holding back until after Labor Day, the unofficial start to the heavy campaigning season.
Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, said Dean's "momentum won't slow until Dean makes a mistake and his crowd decides there's something else better out there."
The physician-turned-politician raised nearly $1 million this past weekend, as thousands of people flocked to rallies in Falls Church and several other cities around the country. If Dean tops $10 million in contributions, which his rivals expect him to do easily, he would become the second Democrat to hit that mark in the year before a presidential election. President Bill Clinton did it in 1995, when he was running for reelection.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), who many leading Democrats consider Dean's toughest challengers for the nomination, will not come close to matching Dean this quarter, according to their campaign aides.
"We're not going to raise that -- that's for sure," said Steve Elmendorf, a top Gephardt adviser. But, "at the end of the day, money isn't everything."
Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, said Dean's fundraising has been an "impressive" feat his candidate cannot match. "We won't hit $10 million this quarter, and we don't need to."
The reason, Jordan said: Democratic candidates can spend only $45 million in the primaries, including the federal matching funds, unless they operate outside the traditional campaign finance system. Candidates for president who agree to curb spending receive federal matching funds for the first $250 of every individual contribution they take in.
This is precisely how all campaigns operated until George W. Bush opted out of the system in 1999 on his way to shattering all fundraising and spending records. Bush is opting out of the system again for his reelection.
Dean might do the same. Jordan said voters would be "distressed" if Dean broke his earlier pledge to abide by the spending limits for "purely political reasons." But most Democrats do not think Dean would pay a political price for doing what Bush is doing: seeking to raise as much money as he can. Trippi said the decision will not be made anytime soon.
"It's certainly something you have to think about," Elmendorf said. "At some point, the match becomes less important than what you get by going outside of the system. This assumes [Dean] remains hot."
Dean, who has raised most of his money in chunks smaller than $100, might be perfectly positioned to make the leap, said Brazile, because he can go back to small donors time and again until they hit the legal maximum of $2,000 per donor. At that point, other candidates will likely drop out, and he can go after their donors.
08-27-2003 12:17 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 12:17 AM
More big news for Dean. It appears he will clear 10 million in fundraising for the quarter...per tomorrow's Washington Post.
Dean to Top $10 Million for Quarter
Democratic candidate Howard Dean, shown at a rally in Chicago, will raise at least $10.3 million this quarter. (Anne Ryan -- AP)
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A03
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who is considering becoming the first Democrat to forgo public financing for a presidential campaign, will raise at least $10.3 million this quarter, his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said yesterday.
Dean led the eight other candidates for the Democratic nomination by raising $7.6 million in the second quarter, and there has been a huge surge in small-dollar contributions to his campaign over the Internet and from more traditional, meet-and-greet fundraising events, Trippi said. Dean is virtually certain to win the money race -- an important measure of a candidate's popularity inside the party -- this quarter, too, according to rival campaigns. The third quarter will end Sept. 30.
But he is also spending money faster than any other candidate. Trippi said Dean will spend $1 million on new ads in key early primary states, including Wisconsin, New Mexico and Washington. By running ads so early in the process, Dean is hoping to build on the buzz surrounding his campaign and generate more money and supporters before rival campaigns get rolling. The other candidates are mostly holding back until after Labor Day, the unofficial start to the heavy campaigning season.
Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, said Dean's "momentum won't slow until Dean makes a mistake and his crowd decides there's something else better out there."
The physician-turned-politician raised nearly $1 million this past weekend, as thousands of people flocked to rallies in Falls Church and several other cities around the country. If Dean tops $10 million in contributions, which his rivals expect him to do easily, he would become the second Democrat to hit that mark in the year before a presidential election. President Bill Clinton did it in 1995, when he was running for reelection.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), who many leading Democrats consider Dean's toughest challengers for the nomination, will not come close to matching Dean this quarter, according to their campaign aides.
"We're not going to raise that -- that's for sure," said Steve Elmendorf, a top Gephardt adviser. But, "at the end of the day, money isn't everything."
Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, said Dean's fundraising has been an "impressive" feat his candidate cannot match. "We won't hit $10 million this quarter, and we don't need to."
The reason, Jordan said: Democratic candidates can spend only $45 million in the primaries, including the federal matching funds, unless they operate outside the traditional campaign finance system. Candidates for president who agree to curb spending receive federal matching funds for the first $250 of every individual contribution they take in.
This is precisely how all campaigns operated until George W. Bush opted out of the system in 1999 on his way to shattering all fundraising and spending records. Bush is opting out of the system again for his reelection.
Dean might do the same. Jordan said voters would be "distressed" if Dean broke his earlier pledge to abide by the spending limits for "purely political reasons." But most Democrats do not think Dean would pay a political price for doing what Bush is doing: seeking to raise as much money as he can. Trippi said the decision will not be made anytime soon.
"It's certainly something you have to think about," Elmendorf said. "At some point, the match becomes less important than what you get by going outside of the system. This assumes [Dean] remains hot."
Dean, who has raised most of his money in chunks smaller than $100, might be perfectly positioned to make the leap, said Brazile, because he can go back to small donors time and again until they hit the legal maximum of $2,000 per donor. At that point, other candidates will likely drop out, and he can go after their donors.
Lysa 844
08-27-2003 01:03 AM ET (US)
Down thread Gail ( A Dean supporter ) summed up nicely why there is a natural affinity towards Dean. I'd have to go back for it, but the trust essence I would echo without even blinking.
Love is a hard word to pin down in this modern society. It can mean a variety of emotions, but imo trust is a quintessential element in love. Without that love can be hollow. With trust, love can develop from that.
In those terms, trust really does factor in. When you can look at a person, listen to them, see their body language, hear the tone in their voice, the impact of their language, how their eyes respond to hot button issues or not and so on and say Yes, I trust or I don't trust this person it is a purely primitive reaction but one that should not be discounted. Often those gut feelings do get translated into real factors.
Individuals have different qualifications for trust.
Some relate it to religion. Bush taps into those that believe in his type of faith that practices hatred for others. That is what I see when I read about people raging against gays. It is hatred of another human being based on fear and lack of understanding. Its being unable to appreciate fellow human beings for their differences, for their choices. Its terribly sad.
08-27-2003 01:03 AM ET (US)
Down thread Gail ( A Dean supporter ) summed up nicely why there is a natural affinity towards Dean. I'd have to go back for it, but the trust essence I would echo without even blinking.
Love is a hard word to pin down in this modern society. It can mean a variety of emotions, but imo trust is a quintessential element in love. Without that love can be hollow. With trust, love can develop from that.
In those terms, trust really does factor in. When you can look at a person, listen to them, see their body language, hear the tone in their voice, the impact of their language, how their eyes respond to hot button issues or not and so on and say Yes, I trust or I don't trust this person it is a purely primitive reaction but one that should not be discounted. Often those gut feelings do get translated into real factors.
Individuals have different qualifications for trust.
Some relate it to religion. Bush taps into those that believe in his type of faith that practices hatred for others. That is what I see when I read about people raging against gays. It is hatred of another human being based on fear and lack of understanding. Its being unable to appreciate fellow human beings for their differences, for their choices. Its terribly sad.
Lysa 845
08-27-2003 01:04 AM ET (US)
I'm looking forward to that Zogby poll too. Never thought that would happen!
08-27-2003 01:04 AM ET (US)
I'm looking forward to that Zogby poll too. Never thought that would happen!
Ann Stewart 846
08-27-2003 01:18 AM ET (US)
I will go back and get Gails comment and I will use some of yours too that you just wrote Lysa.
Thanks for the comment. I believe you worded that just right.
Love Ann
08-27-2003 01:18 AM ET (US)
I will go back and get Gails comment and I will use some of yours too that you just wrote Lysa.
Thanks for the comment. I believe you worded that just right.
Love Ann
Ann Stewart 847
08-27-2003 03:59 AM ET (US)
Hey all I have transfered all the debate from 1st to last to make it easier to read. Check it out at http://2004electiondebate.blogspot.com
Goodnight all Sweet dreams
08-27-2003 03:59 AM ET (US)
Hey all I have transfered all the debate from 1st to last to make it easier to read. Check it out at http://2004electiondebate.blogspot.com
Goodnight all Sweet dreams
Keith Brekhus 848
08-27-2003 09:56 AM ET (US)
While I still can't find the poll itself this morning, the NY Times reference to the Zogby poll can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/politics...5062&partner=GOOGLE
Though polls taken this early in the race can be unreliable predictors, there are statistical signs to back up Dr. Dean's surge in popularity on the street. Zogby International, an independent firm, is scheduled to release Wednesday a poll showing Dr. Dean leading in New Hampshire with 38 percent of the vote to 17 percent for Senator John Kerry; in early July Senator Kerry had 25 percent to Dr. Dean's 22 percent. The poll has a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.
08-27-2003 09:56 AM ET (US)
While I still can't find the poll itself this morning, the NY Times reference to the Zogby poll can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/politics...5062&partner=GOOGLE
Though polls taken this early in the race can be unreliable predictors, there are statistical signs to back up Dr. Dean's surge in popularity on the street. Zogby International, an independent firm, is scheduled to release Wednesday a poll showing Dr. Dean leading in New Hampshire with 38 percent of the vote to 17 percent for Senator John Kerry; in early July Senator Kerry had 25 percent to Dr. Dean's 22 percent. The poll has a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.
Wayne in Missouri 849
08-27-2003 09:57 AM ET (US)
The Zogby poll is officially out and Dean's remarkable 21 point lead (38-17% over Kerry with all others in single digits) in New Hampshire is not a misprint! Dean also has a 71% favorable to 9% unfavorable rating. The next closest candidate in favorability is Kerry with a 66% favorable to 19% unfavorable rating.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=729
08-27-2003 09:57 AM ET (US)
The Zogby poll is officially out and Dean's remarkable 21 point lead (38-17% over Kerry with all others in single digits) in New Hampshire is not a misprint! Dean also has a 71% favorable to 9% unfavorable rating. The next closest candidate in favorability is Kerry with a 66% favorable to 19% unfavorable rating.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=729
Keith Brekhus 851
08-27-2003 11:09 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 11:10 AM
Dean also leads in Maryland
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2436464/detail.html
Howard Dean with 25 percent and Joe Lieberman with 23 percent were far ahead of the rest of the seven candidates. John Kerry at 11 percent and Richard Gephardt at 10 percent were the only other candidates in double figures.
08-27-2003 11:09 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 11:10 AM
Dean also leads in Maryland
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2436464/detail.html
Howard Dean with 25 percent and Joe Lieberman with 23 percent were far ahead of the rest of the seven candidates. John Kerry at 11 percent and Richard Gephardt at 10 percent were the only other candidates in double figures.
Patti Ferschke 852
08-27-2003 12:43 PM ET (US)
YEAH,and how many endorsements is candidate DEAN going to get from his govenor friends..that remains to be seen. Kerry will get many from his senate friends !
08-27-2003 12:43 PM ET (US)
YEAH,and how many endorsements is candidate DEAN going to get from his govenor friends..that remains to be seen. Kerry will get many from his senate friends !
Mike D. 853
08-27-2003 01:36 PM ET (US)
Hello Deanie weanie's
I hope you all read this part of the poll. "Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents said they thought it was somewhat (46%) or very likely (18%) that President George W. Bush would be re-elected in 2004."
George Bush in 2004 will be the winner. Hands down, it's Bush.
Vote for the winning man. Don't listen the dirty lies and bull that people say about Bush. He's the reason our military is the #1 in the world.
08-27-2003 01:36 PM ET (US)
Hello Deanie weanie's
I hope you all read this part of the poll. "Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents said they thought it was somewhat (46%) or very likely (18%) that President George W. Bush would be re-elected in 2004."
George Bush in 2004 will be the winner. Hands down, it's Bush.
Vote for the winning man. Don't listen the dirty lies and bull that people say about Bush. He's the reason our military is the #1 in the world.
Patti Ferschke 854
08-27-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)
There's enuogh of us out here that plain just hate BUSH to make sure he's not the CIC this next go round...you better believe IT !!!
08-27-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)
There's enuogh of us out here that plain just hate BUSH to make sure he's not the CIC this next go round...you better believe IT !!!
Joy 855
08-27-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
Well Dean is alright. I don't love anybody Ann. I just ain't got the love thing you have for people, but I'd vote for Leiberman, because he been good so far. I don't think he's ever went wrong in his run for President yet. People should be looking to him more. I think he's got the right stuff to be the President. I've been researching and I still believe Leiberman is the one to go with.
08-27-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
Well Dean is alright. I don't love anybody Ann. I just ain't got the love thing you have for people, but I'd vote for Leiberman, because he been good so far. I don't think he's ever went wrong in his run for President yet. People should be looking to him more. I think he's got the right stuff to be the President. I've been researching and I still believe Leiberman is the one to go with.
Keith Brekhus 856
08-27-2003 02:23 PM ET (US)
Our military has been number #1 in the world since at least 1941. I don't think Bush can take credit for that.
08-27-2003 02:23 PM ET (US)
Our military has been number #1 in the world since at least 1941. I don't think Bush can take credit for that.
doug in indiana 857
08-27-2003 02:31 PM ET (US)
patti, fuck the congess and whoever they want, their ass is next to go, old motherfers, tradeing our kids future for money in there bank account.
08-27-2003 02:31 PM ET (US)
patti, fuck the congess and whoever they want, their ass is next to go, old motherfers, tradeing our kids future for money in there bank account.
Mike D. 858
08-27-2003 02:43 PM ET (US)
Keith no one has built the military up the way Bush has. Everytime we put a democrate in charge we lose half our military power. You people know this is true. Without Bush this country would be defenseless.
Bush is the one who has brought this country peace, honor and protection. All you debating on who to vote for. Vote for Bush,if not the democrates will make this country's military weak again.
08-27-2003 02:43 PM ET (US)
Keith no one has built the military up the way Bush has. Everytime we put a democrate in charge we lose half our military power. You people know this is true. Without Bush this country would be defenseless.
Bush is the one who has brought this country peace, honor and protection. All you debating on who to vote for. Vote for Bush,if not the democrates will make this country's military weak again.
Keith Brekhus 860
08-27-2003 02:46 PM ET (US)
Ultimately the one endorsement that counts is the one the American people give. Who the Senators and Governors endorse will be irrelevant if the people choose their own leader. If New Hampshire is any indication, the people will endorse Dean for the Democratic nomination.
08-27-2003 02:46 PM ET (US)
Ultimately the one endorsement that counts is the one the American people give. Who the Senators and Governors endorse will be irrelevant if the people choose their own leader. If New Hampshire is any indication, the people will endorse Dean for the Democratic nomination.
Keith Brekhus 861
08-27-2003 02:48 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 02:49 PM
Clinton spent 290 billion a year on the military, not much below what Bush I spent, and 300 times Iraq's military budget. The cannard that Democrats weaken our defense doesn't hold water. For better or worse, most of the weapons used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were procured under Clinton.
Clinton didn't flex his muscles like Bush did, but he always had the capacity to do so if the need arose.
08-27-2003 02:48 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 02:49 PM
Clinton spent 290 billion a year on the military, not much below what Bush I spent, and 300 times Iraq's military budget. The cannard that Democrats weaken our defense doesn't hold water. For better or worse, most of the weapons used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were procured under Clinton.
Clinton didn't flex his muscles like Bush did, but he always had the capacity to do so if the need arose.
Wayne in Missouri 862
08-27-2003 03:58 PM ET (US)
Mike D,
Bush doesn't care about the military except as a stage prop for his re-election.
He is cutting veteran's benefits, military hazard pay, and pay to military families whose loves ones are killed and injured in war.
This is not a record anyone who REALLY supports the military should be proud of.
Supporting the military involves more than saying "bring em on" to the enemy and wrapping yourself in the flag while other flags are wrapping coffins of the people who can't hide behind the secret service or go to a bunker in Nebraska when the enemy does "bring it on." Bush is neither courageous nor supportive of the military, imo.
Also, under Bush the suits led by Rumsfield are excessively meddling in the affairs of and micromanaging the military brass.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
08-27-2003 03:58 PM ET (US)
Mike D,
Bush doesn't care about the military except as a stage prop for his re-election.
He is cutting veteran's benefits, military hazard pay, and pay to military families whose loves ones are killed and injured in war.
This is not a record anyone who REALLY supports the military should be proud of.
Supporting the military involves more than saying "bring em on" to the enemy and wrapping yourself in the flag while other flags are wrapping coffins of the people who can't hide behind the secret service or go to a bunker in Nebraska when the enemy does "bring it on." Bush is neither courageous nor supportive of the military, imo.
Also, under Bush the suits led by Rumsfield are excessively meddling in the affairs of and micromanaging the military brass.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
Keith Brekhus 863
08-27-2003 04:09 PM ET (US)
Wayne,
Right you are. This editorial from the Army Times (yes a US Army newspaper) says it all....
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
Editorial
Nothing but lip service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.
08-27-2003 04:09 PM ET (US)
Wayne,
Right you are. This editorial from the Army Times (yes a US Army newspaper) says it all....
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
Editorial
Nothing but lip service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.
Keith Brekhus 864
08-27-2003 04:15 PM ET (US)
I don't think Wesley CLark will win, simply because his late entry in the race (if he enters) will put him at a huge fundraising disadvantage. By late September Dean will probably have raised 15-20 million or more. Hard for Clark to catch up when somebody else (i,e- Dean) has spent 10 mil with another 10 mil in the bank.
08-27-2003 04:15 PM ET (US)
I don't think Wesley CLark will win, simply because his late entry in the race (if he enters) will put him at a huge fundraising disadvantage. By late September Dean will probably have raised 15-20 million or more. Hard for Clark to catch up when somebody else (i,e- Dean) has spent 10 mil with another 10 mil in the bank.
Ann Stewart 865
08-27-2003 04:46 PM ET (US)
Wow
Hey everybody you guys rule. I'll start working on the websites in a bit. Thanks for being here again today folks.
08-27-2003 04:46 PM ET (US)
Wow
Hey everybody you guys rule. I'll start working on the websites in a bit. Thanks for being here again today folks.
Lysa 866
08-27-2003 05:16 PM ET (US)
Mike says: vote for Bush because he has given us Peace, honor and protection
Err,one by one. Wrong.
Peace, What peace? Look around you, people here in the states are Pissed, allies ( Long time allies ) are pissed, the world is in upheaval both abroad and here in our own country. Bush through his arrogance has brought disharmony.
Honor, What honor? Bush's arrogance has Pissed off everyone except the blind supporters that rely on a media that rarely reports real facts. What does it say when you have to rely on media Outside of the US to get accurate and consistent information on what's Really happening in the US. Lies and secrecy do not equate honor whatsoever. Its dishonorable to lie, Its dishonorable to deceive by hiding information or spinning it. It Is also dishonorable to disrespect your allies.
Protection, what protection??? Shipping containers coming into this country, ten percent are checked over. And that is a high number, the actual number is slightly lower. What does that mean? How has Bush increased our protection by letting 90 percent of shipping container go unchecked? How does protection factor in when Bush through his arrogance has PISSED off not only our allies but also the hotbed of the Middle East which I might remind you has a Very Large percentage of population under twenty five and Unemployed, over educated and restless. They have no outlets. They are frustrated. They do not take kindly to Bush's arrogance. And they are in case you haven't noticed, pissed.
Sorry Mike, Bush fails on all three in major proportions. Astronomical I might add.
~~~
Clark is an intriguing aspect to this race. That he and Dean have been talking I can't help but find fascinating.
~~~
08-27-2003 05:16 PM ET (US)
Mike says: vote for Bush because he has given us Peace, honor and protection
Err,one by one. Wrong.
Peace, What peace? Look around you, people here in the states are Pissed, allies ( Long time allies ) are pissed, the world is in upheaval both abroad and here in our own country. Bush through his arrogance has brought disharmony.
Honor, What honor? Bush's arrogance has Pissed off everyone except the blind supporters that rely on a media that rarely reports real facts. What does it say when you have to rely on media Outside of the US to get accurate and consistent information on what's Really happening in the US. Lies and secrecy do not equate honor whatsoever. Its dishonorable to lie, Its dishonorable to deceive by hiding information or spinning it. It Is also dishonorable to disrespect your allies.
Protection, what protection??? Shipping containers coming into this country, ten percent are checked over. And that is a high number, the actual number is slightly lower. What does that mean? How has Bush increased our protection by letting 90 percent of shipping container go unchecked? How does protection factor in when Bush through his arrogance has PISSED off not only our allies but also the hotbed of the Middle East which I might remind you has a Very Large percentage of population under twenty five and Unemployed, over educated and restless. They have no outlets. They are frustrated. They do not take kindly to Bush's arrogance. And they are in case you haven't noticed, pissed.
Sorry Mike, Bush fails on all three in major proportions. Astronomical I might add.
~~~
Clark is an intriguing aspect to this race. That he and Dean have been talking I can't help but find fascinating.
~~~
Lysa 867
08-27-2003 05:32 PM ET (US)
Two more soldiers lost their lives today and two more soldiers are wounded in Iraq.
Iraqis are not welcome to take part in rebuilding their own country via Bush's admin. Under Dean that would change. Bush doesn't get it. Bush is flapping his lips As Usual. Bush is making a Mess of everything he has a hand in. Until Iraqis are allowed to have a Significant part in rebuilding their own country without the arrogant overseer quality of most Americans there currently, you can just forget about Peace, Honor, And Protection.
Vote for Bush if you want to live in despair, constant fear, and horror.
More importantly Educate yourself about Bush. If you care enough to cheer for Bush you should be caring enough to educating yourself on whom you are cheering for. After all No one like to look like a fool.
Oh yeah did you hear about yet another guy in fear and depression of losing his job shot and killed six of his coworkers and then shot himself. Gee, Thanks Bush for making us feel so Safe.
"It is still the Economy, .."
~~
08-27-2003 05:32 PM ET (US)
Two more soldiers lost their lives today and two more soldiers are wounded in Iraq.
Iraqis are not welcome to take part in rebuilding their own country via Bush's admin. Under Dean that would change. Bush doesn't get it. Bush is flapping his lips As Usual. Bush is making a Mess of everything he has a hand in. Until Iraqis are allowed to have a Significant part in rebuilding their own country without the arrogant overseer quality of most Americans there currently, you can just forget about Peace, Honor, And Protection.
Vote for Bush if you want to live in despair, constant fear, and horror.
More importantly Educate yourself about Bush. If you care enough to cheer for Bush you should be caring enough to educating yourself on whom you are cheering for. After all No one like to look like a fool.
Oh yeah did you hear about yet another guy in fear and depression of losing his job shot and killed six of his coworkers and then shot himself. Gee, Thanks Bush for making us feel so Safe.
"It is still the Economy, .."
~~
Keith Brekhus 868
08-27-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 05:49 PM
I think linking the two soldier's deaths to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq is legitimate. Bush bears some responsibility for choosing to go to war and not planning the post-war follow-up very well and putting Americans at risk.
As for the Chicago shooting--while I recognize that many job losses have occurred because of Bush's econmic policies, I hardly think it is fair to attach any blame for the Chicago tragedy directly to Bush. These sorts of incidents occur most frequently during economic hard times, but they also occur during times of prosperity.
Bush bears no more responsibility for the Chicago tragedy than Clinton does for the school shootings at Columbine. I don't think either incident can be blamed on who is in the White House. Although both tragedies may be indicative of a cultural malaise in our society, that malaise cannot be pinned on either political party or on who happens to be the President at the time.
08-27-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 05:49 PM
I think linking the two soldier's deaths to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq is legitimate. Bush bears some responsibility for choosing to go to war and not planning the post-war follow-up very well and putting Americans at risk.
As for the Chicago shooting--while I recognize that many job losses have occurred because of Bush's econmic policies, I hardly think it is fair to attach any blame for the Chicago tragedy directly to Bush. These sorts of incidents occur most frequently during economic hard times, but they also occur during times of prosperity.
Bush bears no more responsibility for the Chicago tragedy than Clinton does for the school shootings at Columbine. I don't think either incident can be blamed on who is in the White House. Although both tragedies may be indicative of a cultural malaise in our society, that malaise cannot be pinned on either political party or on who happens to be the President at the time.
sindhu kumar 869
08-27-2003 09:01 PM ET (US)
i have made up my mind to go and visit the kerry meetup here in new orleans.
08-27-2003 09:01 PM ET (US)
i have made up my mind to go and visit the kerry meetup here in new orleans.
sindhu kumar 870
08-27-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)
msnbc will air democratic debates on january 27, 2004. sites yet to be determined.
08-27-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)
msnbc will air democratic debates on january 27, 2004. sites yet to be determined.
Ann Stewart 871
08-27-2003 09:13 PM ET (US)
Hey Sindhu
I'm here I'm just trying to find the best way to edit this stuff.
Stand by Sindhu
I'm going to email you.
08-27-2003 09:13 PM ET (US)
Hey Sindhu
I'm here I'm just trying to find the best way to edit this stuff.
Stand by Sindhu
I'm going to email you.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 872
08-27-2003 10:14 PM ET (US)
I love George W. Bush because he’s handsome, intelligent, he has high moral and he’s a good Christian.
08-27-2003 10:14 PM ET (US)
I love George W. Bush because he’s handsome, intelligent, he has high moral and he’s a good Christian.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 873
08-27-2003 10:33 PM ET (US)
I'm waiting for the Dean and Kerry folks to clobber me.
Hi everybody
The Bush Supporter is back to just see how you people who are voting for the wrong man are doing tonight. I sure hope we can all be friends after Bush wins the election again.
Love Jen.
08-27-2003 10:33 PM ET (US)
I'm waiting for the Dean and Kerry folks to clobber me.
Hi everybody
The Bush Supporter is back to just see how you people who are voting for the wrong man are doing tonight. I sure hope we can all be friends after Bush wins the election again.
Love Jen.
doug in indiana 874
08-27-2003 10:57 PM ET (US)
mike just because under democrats we can only kill every one 20 times and not 50 times like we can under the republicans, dont mean our defense is weak.
damn it man, educate yourself for christs sake.,
08-27-2003 10:57 PM ET (US)
mike just because under democrats we can only kill every one 20 times and not 50 times like we can under the republicans, dont mean our defense is weak.
damn it man, educate yourself for christs sake.,
doug in indiana 875
08-27-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 11:07 PM
I love George W. Bush because he’s handsome, intelligent, he has high moral and he’s a good Christian.
-----so am i, you wanna meet up in a hotel later?
hahaha, a good christian with the most kills in history as a govenor, yeah good christian
thats the problem jenny, i dont need some one with fucked up morals like bush telling me what my morals should be, nor do i need a christian telling me how to live my life, shit next thing you want me to bring my young boys to those good boy loving fathers huh?
you god people make me sick, stop tring to force your warped ass views on me and my family, or there will be a holy war, and it will be me making your ass holy, got it?
if i wanted to find god, i sure the hell wouldn't look to the president to help me find him.
whatever happened to minding your own bizz? why you wanna try and say YOUR christian way is the right way?
has god talked to you? did he burn your ass hair with some new commandments? then shut up about morals already, people know right from wrong, thats not what the president job is, would you want your kids bus driver telling you how to invest money? no , because that is not her job.
i dont care if bush was sleeping with 2 women a night, AS LONG AS HE IS GETTING HIS JOB DONE
which it is not in his job discription to be the sheeperd of the flock.
get a grip, when your ready to talk about issue, and not morals(of which, bush could tell you anything, it's not like you would know anyway)
so all we have to do is have howard say he is a christian, and god speaks to him, and you would back him?
sounds like a god freak to me.
keep to the REAL issues, you do know that not everybody believes in a book that was written thousands of years ago and has like 20 different versions of it.
get a grip chick.
08-27-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-27-2003 11:07 PM
I love George W. Bush because he’s handsome, intelligent, he has high moral and he’s a good Christian.
-----so am i, you wanna meet up in a hotel later?
hahaha, a good christian with the most kills in history as a govenor, yeah good christian
thats the problem jenny, i dont need some one with fucked up morals like bush telling me what my morals should be, nor do i need a christian telling me how to live my life, shit next thing you want me to bring my young boys to those good boy loving fathers huh?
you god people make me sick, stop tring to force your warped ass views on me and my family, or there will be a holy war, and it will be me making your ass holy, got it?
if i wanted to find god, i sure the hell wouldn't look to the president to help me find him.
whatever happened to minding your own bizz? why you wanna try and say YOUR christian way is the right way?
has god talked to you? did he burn your ass hair with some new commandments? then shut up about morals already, people know right from wrong, thats not what the president job is, would you want your kids bus driver telling you how to invest money? no , because that is not her job.
i dont care if bush was sleeping with 2 women a night, AS LONG AS HE IS GETTING HIS JOB DONE
which it is not in his job discription to be the sheeperd of the flock.
get a grip, when your ready to talk about issue, and not morals(of which, bush could tell you anything, it's not like you would know anyway)
so all we have to do is have howard say he is a christian, and god speaks to him, and you would back him?
sounds like a god freak to me.
keep to the REAL issues, you do know that not everybody believes in a book that was written thousands of years ago and has like 20 different versions of it.
get a grip chick.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 876
08-28-2003 12:04 AM ET (US)
Doug has anybody ever told you that you are a jerk?
If not, I will just let you know now.
You aren't good enough to lick the dirt off of President Bush's feet.
Your a nut.
08-28-2003 12:04 AM ET (US)
Doug has anybody ever told you that you are a jerk?
If not, I will just let you know now.
You aren't good enough to lick the dirt off of President Bush's feet.
Your a nut.
Ann Stewart 877
08-28-2003 12:13 AM ET (US)
Wow you guys
Are you gonna duke it out or something. Maybe meet in a parking lot somewhere? I will let you know Doug she's just a little bitty tiny woman.
08-28-2003 12:13 AM ET (US)
Wow you guys
Are you gonna duke it out or something. Maybe meet in a parking lot somewhere? I will let you know Doug she's just a little bitty tiny woman.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 878
08-28-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)
Doug
If you would get your life right with God. You would not be such a creepy person. You scare everybody with all your crazy talk.
08-28-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)
Doug
If you would get your life right with God. You would not be such a creepy person. You scare everybody with all your crazy talk.
Lysa 879
08-28-2003 01:32 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 01:33 AM
Another good reason to keep religion Out of politics like it should be in the first place as this country was founded on Separation of Church and State.
Keith, You are right, the recent shooting shouldn't be placed entirely on Bush's shoulders, though with the economy as it is, I find it easy. But again, you are right.
The Columbine shootings didn't have to do with economy so much as they had to do with children hating others for their differences, spurred on by parents. Littleton is Very Conservative. I remember when we were living in Denver it was Weird just how conservative Littleton is. Business were Not open on Sundays because of a strong religious factor. But the really sad thing is while many parents there do the religious thing they are ignoring their children. They teach their children to hate other children if they are different. Hatred is not a pretty thing.
Back in 2000 Littleton kids were gearing up on the methamphetamine scene. Going to church on Sunday with their parents and getting wired the rest of the week. I could care less about drugs. If people want to do them, whatever you know, but Meth is one drug that I draw the line on. Its cheap for people to produce and very deadly. I have seen people go through the stage of trying it out, getting hooked, and losing their entire lives to this drug. Its ugly, very ugly. I've also seen people clean up after. It doesn't happen often, but thankfully there is hope. But why should the parents care if there children do these things. Good clean kids going to church.............what they don't know
The question that needs to be asked is why these kids are turning to serious drugs? I'm sorry, marijuana is not a serious drug. alcohol is more serious than pot. I don't smoke it, but I think it's absurd how people get up in arms about it. The question won't be asked, but I can tell you that kids being forced into religion, being told what to believe in and not given a choice or responsibility the chances of them giving into peer pressure is higher as well as the percentage of kids in those situations seeking out experiences like that in a backlash against the strict morals of their parents.
IMO Bush promoting religion into government will continue kids turning towards unhealthy vices.
Jennifer, would you like Bush if he were Muslim? Would you feel the same way about him. Allah after all is God and vice versa. Its just language, its just religion. Religion does not belong in government.
.
08-28-2003 01:32 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 01:33 AM
Another good reason to keep religion Out of politics like it should be in the first place as this country was founded on Separation of Church and State.
Keith, You are right, the recent shooting shouldn't be placed entirely on Bush's shoulders, though with the economy as it is, I find it easy. But again, you are right.
The Columbine shootings didn't have to do with economy so much as they had to do with children hating others for their differences, spurred on by parents. Littleton is Very Conservative. I remember when we were living in Denver it was Weird just how conservative Littleton is. Business were Not open on Sundays because of a strong religious factor. But the really sad thing is while many parents there do the religious thing they are ignoring their children. They teach their children to hate other children if they are different. Hatred is not a pretty thing.
Back in 2000 Littleton kids were gearing up on the methamphetamine scene. Going to church on Sunday with their parents and getting wired the rest of the week. I could care less about drugs. If people want to do them, whatever you know, but Meth is one drug that I draw the line on. Its cheap for people to produce and very deadly. I have seen people go through the stage of trying it out, getting hooked, and losing their entire lives to this drug. Its ugly, very ugly. I've also seen people clean up after. It doesn't happen often, but thankfully there is hope. But why should the parents care if there children do these things. Good clean kids going to church.............what they don't know
The question that needs to be asked is why these kids are turning to serious drugs? I'm sorry, marijuana is not a serious drug. alcohol is more serious than pot. I don't smoke it, but I think it's absurd how people get up in arms about it. The question won't be asked, but I can tell you that kids being forced into religion, being told what to believe in and not given a choice or responsibility the chances of them giving into peer pressure is higher as well as the percentage of kids in those situations seeking out experiences like that in a backlash against the strict morals of their parents.
IMO Bush promoting religion into government will continue kids turning towards unhealthy vices.
Jennifer, would you like Bush if he were Muslim? Would you feel the same way about him. Allah after all is God and vice versa. Its just language, its just religion. Religion does not belong in government.
.
doug in indiana 880
08-28-2003 02:03 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 02:03 AM
thats the funny thing jen, i do have my life right with god, you see the good book says that you dont need a church, just a bible, and your closet, and your heart.
i dont need your crap about morals, like you know who has them and who dont.
do you know george bush?
do even know your mate?
everybody has a dream, a place they want to be in life now a days, the chances that someone will tell you what that place is and how you fit into that place is not very likely.
if your not the one who can share in their vision of what they want.
lets not pretend to know the inner workings of george bush.
who is a member of a spook club, which is not allowed by the good book, also a member of the groove out in california, documented proof miss. good book living.
he had put to death people thought to be not guilty while governor of texas , along with the first women in 100 years, with people calling from all over the world for him to let her live.
tell that in church on sunday.
tell them that he has cut much needed and hard fought for womens programs, including the fair wage law in the dept. of labor.
meaning a scarry guy like me, with just as much knowledge as you, will be getting paid alot more then you.
ain't that fun?
did you know he supports the long sentence's for drug offenders?
do you know that because of limited bed space, some inmates have to be released back into our areas to make room for these long sentence pot growers?
do you know who gets out in 10 yuears while non violent pot growers get 50 years?
how about killers,child pervets, and all the other bad people, break into a home.3 years
sell a pound of weed to someone who wants it.....10 years
yes,yes weed is what makes these young people go crazy ain't it?
i bet those tv spots with the girl smoking and then letting that guy grope her makes sense to you huh?
i bet you also have no ideal how tons of heroin are comming from afganistan and into america huh?
just some guy flys over there in his plane, never mind the war going on there, or security, picks up a couple of tons, and then flys right back into our airspace, with no one checking his plane out?
do you know i downloaded video of the us government testing ACID on troops?
do you have any ideal whats going on in the world around you at all?
bush is outta there .
dean is comming up
speaking of bush, tell this in church also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....g+26+2003,+12:19+PM
Retroactive legislation moving rapidly through Congress would make it easier for corporate wrongdoers to escape responsibility for defrauding investors, harming the environment and
otherwise maximizing profits at the expense of the health and financial well-being of ordinary citizens," says Nan Aron, president of Alliance For Justice, a nonprofit corporation based in Washington, DC. "In the wake of the worst corporate scandals in fifty years, rather than acting to deter wrongdoing, Congress is poised to encourage more white collar misconduct with
passage of a so-called class action reform bill which actually retroactively helps several of our most notorious corporate miscreants escape accountability.
08-28-2003 02:03 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 02:03 AM
thats the funny thing jen, i do have my life right with god, you see the good book says that you dont need a church, just a bible, and your closet, and your heart.
i dont need your crap about morals, like you know who has them and who dont.
do you know george bush?
do even know your mate?
everybody has a dream, a place they want to be in life now a days, the chances that someone will tell you what that place is and how you fit into that place is not very likely.
if your not the one who can share in their vision of what they want.
lets not pretend to know the inner workings of george bush.
who is a member of a spook club, which is not allowed by the good book, also a member of the groove out in california, documented proof miss. good book living.
he had put to death people thought to be not guilty while governor of texas , along with the first women in 100 years, with people calling from all over the world for him to let her live.
tell that in church on sunday.
tell them that he has cut much needed and hard fought for womens programs, including the fair wage law in the dept. of labor.
meaning a scarry guy like me, with just as much knowledge as you, will be getting paid alot more then you.
ain't that fun?
did you know he supports the long sentence's for drug offenders?
do you know that because of limited bed space, some inmates have to be released back into our areas to make room for these long sentence pot growers?
do you know who gets out in 10 yuears while non violent pot growers get 50 years?
how about killers,child pervets, and all the other bad people, break into a home.3 years
sell a pound of weed to someone who wants it.....10 years
yes,yes weed is what makes these young people go crazy ain't it?
i bet those tv spots with the girl smoking and then letting that guy grope her makes sense to you huh?
i bet you also have no ideal how tons of heroin are comming from afganistan and into america huh?
just some guy flys over there in his plane, never mind the war going on there, or security, picks up a couple of tons, and then flys right back into our airspace, with no one checking his plane out?
do you know i downloaded video of the us government testing ACID on troops?
do you have any ideal whats going on in the world around you at all?
bush is outta there .
dean is comming up
speaking of bush, tell this in church also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....g+26+2003,+12:19+PM
Retroactive legislation moving rapidly through Congress would make it easier for corporate wrongdoers to escape responsibility for defrauding investors, harming the environment and
otherwise maximizing profits at the expense of the health and financial well-being of ordinary citizens," says Nan Aron, president of Alliance For Justice, a nonprofit corporation based in Washington, DC. "In the wake of the worst corporate scandals in fifty years, rather than acting to deter wrongdoing, Congress is poised to encourage more white collar misconduct with
passage of a so-called class action reform bill which actually retroactively helps several of our most notorious corporate miscreants escape accountability.
Patti Ferschke 881
08-28-2003 02:58 AM ET (US)
The good news is; the zogby poll is based on 501 votes! That's no bigger than one of our USA neighborhoods! Do you realize it will take DEAN at least two years in office to even begin to make a dent in what he needs to do?? Do you realize only 66% of "we the people" realize there's an election next year?? SOME POLL.......have fun !
08-28-2003 02:58 AM ET (US)
The good news is; the zogby poll is based on 501 votes! That's no bigger than one of our USA neighborhoods! Do you realize it will take DEAN at least two years in office to even begin to make a dent in what he needs to do?? Do you realize only 66% of "we the people" realize there's an election next year?? SOME POLL.......have fun !
Patti Ferschke 882
08-28-2003 03:01 AM ET (US)
JEN,got to church to get your religion. Are you "more christian" this past three years because of GWB? If you say yes,you're not being honest with yourself or God
08-28-2003 03:01 AM ET (US)
JEN,got to church to get your religion. Are you "more christian" this past three years because of GWB? If you say yes,you're not being honest with yourself or God
Keith Brekhus 883
08-28-2003 09:15 AM ET (US)
the number (501) of people polled doesn't have to be large to be an accurate and representative sample. Of course, polls for primaries tend to be somewhat less accurate on average then general election polls, because it is harder for pollsters to get a fix on who will actually vote in a primary {turnout is less predictable than in a general election}.
On the other hand, tracking this poll over time in New Hampshire, it is blatantly obvious that Dean has gained considerable momentum at Kerry's expense.
Kerry, however, will officially kick off his campaign after Labor Day, and unlike Dean (and Edwards) he has not yet run TV ads in New Hampshire, but he will.
John Kerry is certainly not out of the race (its very early). However, these poll numbers will damage his third quarter fundraising. Right now his campaign is on life support--he needs a spark or he is all but finished.
08-28-2003 09:15 AM ET (US)
the number (501) of people polled doesn't have to be large to be an accurate and representative sample. Of course, polls for primaries tend to be somewhat less accurate on average then general election polls, because it is harder for pollsters to get a fix on who will actually vote in a primary {turnout is less predictable than in a general election}.
On the other hand, tracking this poll over time in New Hampshire, it is blatantly obvious that Dean has gained considerable momentum at Kerry's expense.
Kerry, however, will officially kick off his campaign after Labor Day, and unlike Dean (and Edwards) he has not yet run TV ads in New Hampshire, but he will.
John Kerry is certainly not out of the race (its very early). However, these poll numbers will damage his third quarter fundraising. Right now his campaign is on life support--he needs a spark or he is all but finished.
Keith Brekhus 884
08-28-2003 10:44 AM ET (US)
A little article discussing Kerry's fall from Democratic frontrunner status. Kerry of course still has a chance to reinvigorate his campaign post-labor day, but the "Kerry is fading" meme is slowly taking hold in the press and Kerry must reverse that or his fundraising will dry up.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030827-084259-1725r.htm
That sinking feeling
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Though it's garnering little attention from the political press corps, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign has been plummeting.
Once the odds-on choice to win the Democratic nomination and take on President Bush, Mr. Kerry's emotionless, messageless campaign has stalled. All the momentum is rolling with feisty former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose combative, ultraliberal, antiwar campaign is surprising the pundits and rousing the Democratic Party establishment.
Arguably, Mr. Kerry has the sharpest campaign team in the business, and the heaviest hitters. But what Mr. Kerry may possess in senatorial gravitas, he lacks in personality, bite and soul.
Mr. Dean, however, is all bite, jabs and left hooks. His stump speeches leave Democratic audiences pumped and ready to sign up.
"It's message vs. no message," says independent pollster John Zogby. "Dean is focused. His messages can fit on a bumper sticker. They're clear. You know who he is and where he stands. He reminds me of John McCain.
"John [Kerry] just hasn't found a focus yet," Mr. Zogby says. "He is all nuances. He comes across as an academic. He can give you the competing arguments on every major issue and have you walk away and say, 'Yeah, but where does he stand?' "
The result: Mr. Kerry's campaign is in a slump and, at least for now, shows no signs recovering. By mid-August, Mr. Dean had jumped 7 percentage points ahead of him in New Hampshire (28 percent to Mr. Kerry's 21 percent). The only other Democrat in double digits at that point was Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri (10 percent).
Meanwhile, Mr. Kerry is not really in play in Iowa, which once belonged to Mr. Gephardt (who won there in 1988). Mr. Dean, however, has caught up with the former House Democratic leader and, in some polls, has passed him. Mr. Kerry, at best, is running in third or fourth place in that state, depending on what poll you look at.
Nationally, most Democrats either know little about Mr. Kerry or dislike what he is selling. For months he was ambivalent on the war in Iraq, but is now trying to reinvent himself as a staunch critic of Mr. Bush's postwar plans. Mr. Zogby has Mr. Kerry doing no better than fourth in his nationwide rankings with 9 percent, running behind Mr. Dean, Mr. Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who are locked in a three-way tie with 12 percent each.
With just four months to go before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in January, Mr. Kerry is shockingly weak in just about every region of the country, according to Mr. Zogby.
In the Eastern states, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Dean were locked in first place with 13 percent each. Mr. Kerry, a New Englander who you would think would do best in the East, is in the backfield with Mr. Gephardt and Al Sharpton — barely drawing 4 percent.
In the South, Mr. Kerry is tied with Mr. Sharpton at 9 percent, trailing Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Lieberman with 15 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Mr. Kerry trails badly in the Central/Great Lakes region with 8 percent, well behind Messrs. Gephardt, Dean and Lieberman. His best regional showing is in the West, where he runs 2 points behind frontrunner Mr. Dean (17 percent).
Among independents, reportedly the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country, which will be critical in open primaries, Mr. Kerry is running behind his top three rivals.
Mr. Dean's surge in the final months of the pre-primary races comes from a combination of factors: His skillful use of the Internet to raise money, turn out party activists for his appearances and build national support for his candidacy. His strategic decision to run TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire in August surprised Mr. Kerry's advisers, who decided not to run ads until after Labor Day, "when voters are paying attention."
Apparently, Democratic voters are paying attention earlier than anyone thought, which has Mr. Kerry's advisers worried. If he loses New Hampshire after a dismal showing in Iowa, it will devastate his campaign, say his opponents' camps.
"It's difficult for any candidate to do poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire and be taken seriously, and it becomes even more difficult if you are a New Englander and do poorly in New Hampshire," says Jim Demers, Mr. Gephardt's strategist in the Granite State.
Kerry adviser Phil Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic chairman, cautiously told me last week: "If Kerry loses New Hampshire, I think he would have the resources to go on. But I don't want to speculate, because I think he will win."
But right now, Mr. Dean has clearly got the top spot, while Mr. Kerry is trying to jump-start a campaign that may have peaked several months ago.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
08-28-2003 10:44 AM ET (US)
A little article discussing Kerry's fall from Democratic frontrunner status. Kerry of course still has a chance to reinvigorate his campaign post-labor day, but the "Kerry is fading" meme is slowly taking hold in the press and Kerry must reverse that or his fundraising will dry up.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030827-084259-1725r.htm
That sinking feeling
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Though it's garnering little attention from the political press corps, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign has been plummeting.
Once the odds-on choice to win the Democratic nomination and take on President Bush, Mr. Kerry's emotionless, messageless campaign has stalled. All the momentum is rolling with feisty former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose combative, ultraliberal, antiwar campaign is surprising the pundits and rousing the Democratic Party establishment.
Arguably, Mr. Kerry has the sharpest campaign team in the business, and the heaviest hitters. But what Mr. Kerry may possess in senatorial gravitas, he lacks in personality, bite and soul.
Mr. Dean, however, is all bite, jabs and left hooks. His stump speeches leave Democratic audiences pumped and ready to sign up.
"It's message vs. no message," says independent pollster John Zogby. "Dean is focused. His messages can fit on a bumper sticker. They're clear. You know who he is and where he stands. He reminds me of John McCain.
"John [Kerry] just hasn't found a focus yet," Mr. Zogby says. "He is all nuances. He comes across as an academic. He can give you the competing arguments on every major issue and have you walk away and say, 'Yeah, but where does he stand?' "
The result: Mr. Kerry's campaign is in a slump and, at least for now, shows no signs recovering. By mid-August, Mr. Dean had jumped 7 percentage points ahead of him in New Hampshire (28 percent to Mr. Kerry's 21 percent). The only other Democrat in double digits at that point was Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri (10 percent).
Meanwhile, Mr. Kerry is not really in play in Iowa, which once belonged to Mr. Gephardt (who won there in 1988). Mr. Dean, however, has caught up with the former House Democratic leader and, in some polls, has passed him. Mr. Kerry, at best, is running in third or fourth place in that state, depending on what poll you look at.
Nationally, most Democrats either know little about Mr. Kerry or dislike what he is selling. For months he was ambivalent on the war in Iraq, but is now trying to reinvent himself as a staunch critic of Mr. Bush's postwar plans. Mr. Zogby has Mr. Kerry doing no better than fourth in his nationwide rankings with 9 percent, running behind Mr. Dean, Mr. Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who are locked in a three-way tie with 12 percent each.
With just four months to go before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in January, Mr. Kerry is shockingly weak in just about every region of the country, according to Mr. Zogby.
In the Eastern states, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Dean were locked in first place with 13 percent each. Mr. Kerry, a New Englander who you would think would do best in the East, is in the backfield with Mr. Gephardt and Al Sharpton — barely drawing 4 percent.
In the South, Mr. Kerry is tied with Mr. Sharpton at 9 percent, trailing Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Lieberman with 15 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Mr. Kerry trails badly in the Central/Great Lakes region with 8 percent, well behind Messrs. Gephardt, Dean and Lieberman. His best regional showing is in the West, where he runs 2 points behind frontrunner Mr. Dean (17 percent).
Among independents, reportedly the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country, which will be critical in open primaries, Mr. Kerry is running behind his top three rivals.
Mr. Dean's surge in the final months of the pre-primary races comes from a combination of factors: His skillful use of the Internet to raise money, turn out party activists for his appearances and build national support for his candidacy. His strategic decision to run TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire in August surprised Mr. Kerry's advisers, who decided not to run ads until after Labor Day, "when voters are paying attention."
Apparently, Democratic voters are paying attention earlier than anyone thought, which has Mr. Kerry's advisers worried. If he loses New Hampshire after a dismal showing in Iowa, it will devastate his campaign, say his opponents' camps.
"It's difficult for any candidate to do poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire and be taken seriously, and it becomes even more difficult if you are a New Englander and do poorly in New Hampshire," says Jim Demers, Mr. Gephardt's strategist in the Granite State.
Kerry adviser Phil Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic chairman, cautiously told me last week: "If Kerry loses New Hampshire, I think he would have the resources to go on. But I don't want to speculate, because I think he will win."
But right now, Mr. Dean has clearly got the top spot, while Mr. Kerry is trying to jump-start a campaign that may have peaked several months ago.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Keith Brekhus 885
08-28-2003 10:51 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 10:52 AM
Why Dean's campaign is scaring the crap out of everybody....
(with credit to Steve Gilliard...I modified his post slightly from his web blog)
Money.
Dean has it. His opponents have a lot less of it.
Dean led the eight other candidates for the Democratic nomination by raising $7.6 million in the second quarter, and there has been a huge surge in small-dollar contributions to his campaign over the Internet and from more traditional, meet-and-greet fundraising events, Trippi said. Dean is virtually certain to win the money race -- an important measure of a candidate's popularity inside the party -- this quarter, too, according to rival campaigns. The third quarter will end Sept. 30.
Money from small contributors which none of his rivals can hope to match. He's been able to raise money in spots on the level of Bush and Cheney at a fraction of their cost. Make no mistake, Dean is running against Bush, not John Kerry. Dean has already defined the debate as who will best be able to beat Bush. The minute they start debating Dean and his tactics, the base of the party howls in his defense. It also has to cause Wes Clark to think hard. Dean can bury him in ads and cut off his money. In political terms, he's got the high ground. Joe Lieberman tried to turn Dean into the issue and it was a body blow to his campaign. Al From tried to scare people away, and it backfired on the DLC. Dean's money has pushed all the candidates to attack Bush harder and harder.
Political pros know that money tells the story. Dean's fundraising has been phenomenal.
The physician-turned-politician raised nearly $1 million this past weekend, as thousands of people flocked to rallies in Falls Church and several other cities around the country. If Dean tops $10 million in contributions, which his rivals expect him to do easily, he would become the second Democrat to hit that mark in the year before a presidential election. President Bill Clinton did it in 1995, when he was running for reelection.
Which mean he's raised more money than any Democratic challenger ever and done it earlier.
"We're not going to raise that -- that's for sure," said Steve Elmendorf, a top Gephardt adviser. But, "at the end of the day, money isn't everything."
Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, said Dean's fundraising has been an "impressive" feat his candidate cannot match. "We won't hit $10 million this quarter, and we don't need to."
Uh Jim, you would kill to have Dean's money and the resources it brings. Any campaign would.
But the reason Dean is doing well is simple: he opposed the war. If the war had gone well, Kerry or Gephardt might have had a chance. But Dean's money advantage is a very big deal as well. Wes Clark has to know he'll never raise that kind of cash in the time left.
What does that money do? It alters the debate. Lieberman and From tried to make Dean the issue. The base, not even Dean supporters, but the base of the party turned on them like wolverines. Because Dean is setting the agenda. He's running against George Bush. If you run against Howard Dean, people want to know why. Which is a pretty intense handicap to deal with. Dean is creating a simple litmus test: how hard will you run against Bush. It's crippled Lieberman and Edwards already. It's hindered Kerry and Gephardt.
Dean's money comes in cheaply and can be spent taunting the ever tempermental Bush.
One message which should be drawn from Dean's summer fundraising is that he's being rewarded for opposing Bush. By fighting Bush's policies and attacking democratic passivity, he's not only cutting himself away from the pack, he's getting records amounts of cash.
08-28-2003 10:51 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 10:52 AM
Why Dean's campaign is scaring the crap out of everybody....
(with credit to Steve Gilliard...I modified his post slightly from his web blog)
Money.
Dean has it. His opponents have a lot less of it.
Dean led the eight other candidates for the Democratic nomination by raising $7.6 million in the second quarter, and there has been a huge surge in small-dollar contributions to his campaign over the Internet and from more traditional, meet-and-greet fundraising events, Trippi said. Dean is virtually certain to win the money race -- an important measure of a candidate's popularity inside the party -- this quarter, too, according to rival campaigns. The third quarter will end Sept. 30.
Money from small contributors which none of his rivals can hope to match. He's been able to raise money in spots on the level of Bush and Cheney at a fraction of their cost. Make no mistake, Dean is running against Bush, not John Kerry. Dean has already defined the debate as who will best be able to beat Bush. The minute they start debating Dean and his tactics, the base of the party howls in his defense. It also has to cause Wes Clark to think hard. Dean can bury him in ads and cut off his money. In political terms, he's got the high ground. Joe Lieberman tried to turn Dean into the issue and it was a body blow to his campaign. Al From tried to scare people away, and it backfired on the DLC. Dean's money has pushed all the candidates to attack Bush harder and harder.
Political pros know that money tells the story. Dean's fundraising has been phenomenal.
The physician-turned-politician raised nearly $1 million this past weekend, as thousands of people flocked to rallies in Falls Church and several other cities around the country. If Dean tops $10 million in contributions, which his rivals expect him to do easily, he would become the second Democrat to hit that mark in the year before a presidential election. President Bill Clinton did it in 1995, when he was running for reelection.
Which mean he's raised more money than any Democratic challenger ever and done it earlier.
"We're not going to raise that -- that's for sure," said Steve Elmendorf, a top Gephardt adviser. But, "at the end of the day, money isn't everything."
Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, said Dean's fundraising has been an "impressive" feat his candidate cannot match. "We won't hit $10 million this quarter, and we don't need to."
Uh Jim, you would kill to have Dean's money and the resources it brings. Any campaign would.
But the reason Dean is doing well is simple: he opposed the war. If the war had gone well, Kerry or Gephardt might have had a chance. But Dean's money advantage is a very big deal as well. Wes Clark has to know he'll never raise that kind of cash in the time left.
What does that money do? It alters the debate. Lieberman and From tried to make Dean the issue. The base, not even Dean supporters, but the base of the party turned on them like wolverines. Because Dean is setting the agenda. He's running against George Bush. If you run against Howard Dean, people want to know why. Which is a pretty intense handicap to deal with. Dean is creating a simple litmus test: how hard will you run against Bush. It's crippled Lieberman and Edwards already. It's hindered Kerry and Gephardt.
Dean's money comes in cheaply and can be spent taunting the ever tempermental Bush.
One message which should be drawn from Dean's summer fundraising is that he's being rewarded for opposing Bush. By fighting Bush's policies and attacking democratic passivity, he's not only cutting himself away from the pack, he's getting records amounts of cash.
Wayne in Missouri 886
08-28-2003 12:03 PM ET (US)
The reason Dean is blowing the rest of the Democratic field away in fundraising is because he has figured out what the party establishment has failed to learn. It is better to get tens of thousands of people to open up their small pocketbooks for $25 checks every month than to hit up a handful of Washington Insider lobbyists for one whopping maximum donation $2000 check.
Dean can keep going back to his contributors over and over while the others have maxed out on one time checks from wealthy contributors and lobbyists.
Even if Dean doesn't get the nomination, I hope the rest of the Democrats have learned that to compete in fundraising these days, they need to reach the grassroots and the oridinary voter not just the lobbyists.
My wife and I have probably donated 12 times to the Dean campaign already (all small checks) and have even agreed to have a small monthly contribution taken out of our credit card. We'll never reach the maximum donation numbers so we'll be able to give throughout the campaign. That's the kind of loyalty the other candidates are having a hard time finding because they've been too unimaginative and traditional in their $2000 a plate fundraising affairs. Most of us can't afford $2,000 a plate and don't really like the idea of political candidates prostituting themselves to lobbyists in that manner anyway. Dean's campaign will change the way candidates fundraise. And that's a good thing.
08-28-2003 12:03 PM ET (US)
The reason Dean is blowing the rest of the Democratic field away in fundraising is because he has figured out what the party establishment has failed to learn. It is better to get tens of thousands of people to open up their small pocketbooks for $25 checks every month than to hit up a handful of Washington Insider lobbyists for one whopping maximum donation $2000 check.
Dean can keep going back to his contributors over and over while the others have maxed out on one time checks from wealthy contributors and lobbyists.
Even if Dean doesn't get the nomination, I hope the rest of the Democrats have learned that to compete in fundraising these days, they need to reach the grassroots and the oridinary voter not just the lobbyists.
My wife and I have probably donated 12 times to the Dean campaign already (all small checks) and have even agreed to have a small monthly contribution taken out of our credit card. We'll never reach the maximum donation numbers so we'll be able to give throughout the campaign. That's the kind of loyalty the other candidates are having a hard time finding because they've been too unimaginative and traditional in their $2000 a plate fundraising affairs. Most of us can't afford $2,000 a plate and don't really like the idea of political candidates prostituting themselves to lobbyists in that manner anyway. Dean's campaign will change the way candidates fundraise. And that's a good thing.
doug in indiana 887
08-28-2003 01:06 PM ET (US)
could not have said it better wayne.
untill we have a leader who can understand that numbers of the population figures he sees, each one is a person with hopes and dreams.
the last 50 years in this country have turned it into shit, all big company interests.
if we stop giving jobs away, letting people come into our country and take jobs away, if we make companys pay the 35% tax they should, if we could raise up education so as to up lift the poor class.
people within 20 years we could knock out welfare and homelessness( a huge tax refund there for us )as we will no long have these programs if everyone is educated and has good jobs.
you know my take on it? if companys want to send jobs over seas while america's are not working, then kick there ass out of america, you dont want to pay taxes? you want to cook the books and steal from hardworking family's? take your company and move to china, oh and by the way, they wont be able to sell their product in america either or to america interests(if they want america funding, which needs to be cut also, how the hell are we in debt, but yet giving 3 billion a year to israel?)is that more church in government perhaps?
but this dean thing is more then just howard getting elected, we have to change congress also, and local level people also, labels dont matter if they get the job done. if they dont, they go, alot of people have not been voting in this country, that needs to change, if we want a better life.
besides helping the poor class up knocking out welfare, you can also look for a decrease in crime, due to higher education and better jobs, also
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
stop putting non violent offenders(most likely, laid back pot growers,etc) in for 50 years and killers in for 10 years, that my friends is why the crime rate goes down maybe a little if your lucky.
then if we are serious about knocking out wmd that kill our citizens, we need to bomb the cig factory's and company's right now.
two things right now look to be our downfall
1. greed of the ruling class
2. ignorance of the lower and middle classes
08-28-2003 01:06 PM ET (US)
could not have said it better wayne.
untill we have a leader who can understand that numbers of the population figures he sees, each one is a person with hopes and dreams.
the last 50 years in this country have turned it into shit, all big company interests.
if we stop giving jobs away, letting people come into our country and take jobs away, if we make companys pay the 35% tax they should, if we could raise up education so as to up lift the poor class.
people within 20 years we could knock out welfare and homelessness( a huge tax refund there for us )as we will no long have these programs if everyone is educated and has good jobs.
you know my take on it? if companys want to send jobs over seas while america's are not working, then kick there ass out of america, you dont want to pay taxes? you want to cook the books and steal from hardworking family's? take your company and move to china, oh and by the way, they wont be able to sell their product in america either or to america interests(if they want america funding, which needs to be cut also, how the hell are we in debt, but yet giving 3 billion a year to israel?)is that more church in government perhaps?
but this dean thing is more then just howard getting elected, we have to change congress also, and local level people also, labels dont matter if they get the job done. if they dont, they go, alot of people have not been voting in this country, that needs to change, if we want a better life.
besides helping the poor class up knocking out welfare, you can also look for a decrease in crime, due to higher education and better jobs, also
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
stop putting non violent offenders(most likely, laid back pot growers,etc) in for 50 years and killers in for 10 years, that my friends is why the crime rate goes down maybe a little if your lucky.
then if we are serious about knocking out wmd that kill our citizens, we need to bomb the cig factory's and company's right now.
two things right now look to be our downfall
1. greed of the ruling class
2. ignorance of the lower and middle classes
doug in indiana 888
08-28-2003 01:22 PM ET (US)
also, lets try it out.
BUY AMERICAN
sure it may cost a little more, and the product might not be as good(but will get better in time as more american companys have cash on hand to build better products like in the 50's)
lets forget wal-mart, where a priceroll back means they found a cheaper village to work for 30 cents an hour.
to get a real good look into some bizz views of your fav big name company's
read the book
no logo
folks buy american as much as you can, boycott these big companys untill they understand we care more for human life and cost of living then we do saving 50 cents off someone's suffering.
shop small bizz, mom and pop shops.
feel happy casue the money and jobs belong to your friends and family, that you are putting food on the table of someone who might help you on the side of the road someday.
lets take away the fear people. we can do anything we want, together america cant be stopped, if we want to end the lower class and poverty, then we can.
homelessness, no problem, unemployed no big deal.
tax us, but spend it wisely, companys that think they can jack the government cause lawmakers dont care since it's not their money, need to be shot, same thing with the lawmakers that approve that kind of spending.
lets weed them out, time to pay the piper.
you got rich off our backs long enough.
time to give, or time for us to take away, whichever comes first.
08-28-2003 01:22 PM ET (US)
also, lets try it out.
BUY AMERICAN
sure it may cost a little more, and the product might not be as good(but will get better in time as more american companys have cash on hand to build better products like in the 50's)
lets forget wal-mart, where a priceroll back means they found a cheaper village to work for 30 cents an hour.
to get a real good look into some bizz views of your fav big name company's
read the book
no logo
folks buy american as much as you can, boycott these big companys untill they understand we care more for human life and cost of living then we do saving 50 cents off someone's suffering.
shop small bizz, mom and pop shops.
feel happy casue the money and jobs belong to your friends and family, that you are putting food on the table of someone who might help you on the side of the road someday.
lets take away the fear people. we can do anything we want, together america cant be stopped, if we want to end the lower class and poverty, then we can.
homelessness, no problem, unemployed no big deal.
tax us, but spend it wisely, companys that think they can jack the government cause lawmakers dont care since it's not their money, need to be shot, same thing with the lawmakers that approve that kind of spending.
lets weed them out, time to pay the piper.
you got rich off our backs long enough.
time to give, or time for us to take away, whichever comes first.
doug in indiana 889
08-28-2003 02:37 PM ET (US)
1,000 reasons to dump bush, with source's for each one........
GENDER & SEX
WOMEN'S RIGHTS:
Joining Sudan, Libya and the Vatican, the White House is fighting to delete language requiring that ‘women and adolescent girls have full access to affordable, quality reproductive health care, from the draft document for the UN Special Session on Children. The U.S. maintains this position despite the fact that reproductive health care is a proven way to reduce maternal and infant mortality, which all parties agree is crucial to improve the lives of children. source
Under the Bush proposal, the government would spend $300 million annually on programs promoting marriage, $200 million of which would come from federal dollars and $100 million from matching funds required of the states.
The proposal aims to encourage "the formation and maintenance of two-parent married families and responsible fatherhood" through funding made available for research, demonstrations, technical assistance and matching grants to states. source
Restricting the right to abortion in developing nations is a major foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration; it appeases anti-choice constituents without offending more moderate conservatives. source
Conservatives have consistently blocked attempts to allow overseas servicewomen to have abortions without having to return home. source
Advocates for women agree that Bush is acting to reverse the modest gains made under Bill Clinton. But the White House is moving deftly. In the name of budget cutting, it is closing women's offices in federal agencies, defunding programs that monitor discrimination, and appointing people who oppose affirmative action and welfare for single mothers to policy-making posts. "They're not taking legislation to the Hill and putting it up on high profile," says Martha Burk, who chairs the National Council of Women's Organizations. "They're doing it through regs, policy changes, executive orders. All of this is under the radar for most citizens." source
Take David Hager, Christ's messenger on PMS. As a physician, he refuses to discuss contraception with unwed female patients. Now he's part of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the FDA. An outcry forced Bush to withdraw Hager's nomination to head that panel, which, under Clinton, played a major role in legalizing RU-486, the drug that can terminate a pregnancy at the zygote stage. With the religious right pressing for repeal of that authorization, it remains to be seen who will chair this crucial committee. source
Meanwhile at the Department of Health and Human Services, Wade Horn has been put in charge of family support. A firm believer in using welfare to encourage marriage, Horn has proposed denying benefits to cohabiting couples and withholding money from single mothers until all married couples have been served. source
In the fog of pending war, Bush has moved to dismantle federal bureaus that monitor discrimination against women. source
Bush defunded the women's equity office at the Department of Education (though technically it still exists). source
Bush tried to shut down the Department of Labor's network of regional women's offices. source
Bush closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach. source
One notorious example is our failure to sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. source
The administration has also objected to UN family-planning and AIDS-prevention programs that offer or merely mention condoms. source
According to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. even opposed efforts to provide special rehabilitation for female victims of war crimes, because the measure might be construed as offering information about abortion to girls who have been raped. source
A bill passed by the Republican House would allow health care companies to prevent their doctors from discussing abortion. Here is this decade's version of silence = death. source
Outlawed an abortion procedure that right-to-life groups call "partial birth." The goal is to ultimately outlaw all abortion, but Bush won't admit it. But then he almost never says what he really means. source
Bush wants legal protection for the fetus, not because he's enamored of fetal tissue, but, again, because he really wants to outlaw abortion. We've seen what happens when abortion is outlawed; do we really want to go back to 1971 before Roe v Wade? source
The banned abortion procedure makes no allowance for the health of the mother. Someone should ask Bush why an unborn fetus takes priority over a woman. But don't expect an answer; he will never say anything that might offend a voter. source
Bush believes discrimination against women is less serious that racial or ethnic discrimination. source
Attempted to confer personhood on the fetus. source
Inflated charges against UN Family Planning program. source
Reduced funding for UNFPA. source
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush declares "national sanctity of life day." source
Sought reevaluation of RU-486 "abortion pill." source
Tried to stop contraceptive funding for federal employees. source
2002 budget proposed cutting child and maternal health program. source
On his first day in office, Bush reinstated the global gag rule to hinder family planning. source
Supported the banning of abortions at military hospitals. source
President Bush is trying to stack the federal courts with anti-choice conservative judges. more
W. David Hager, an anti-abortion rights doctor who mixes the practice of medicine and religion, was among eleven physicians appointed on December 24 to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. source
Breast cancer researchers attending a three-day conference at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Maryland, confidently announced yesterday that the strongest statistical evidence shows no elevated breast cancer risk in women who have had abortions. Their findings foil the latest attempts by the Bush Administration and its anti-abortion supporters to impose conservative ideologies on science and medicine. source
The Commission on Opportunity in Athletics recommended sweeping and debilitating changes to Title IX. source
GAY RIGHTS:
Bush has said he simply opposed hate-crime legislation in Texas because he believes that "all crime is hate crime." source
John Ashcroft was a co-sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed in 1996 which bans federal recognition of gay marriages and prohibits spouses in same-sex marriages from receiving federal benefits. source
It is commonly believed that Bush derailed a Texas hate-crime bill in 1999 because it included protections based on sexual orientation. Also that year, Bush supported a measure that banned gay couples from becoming foster parents or from adopting foster children. source
Bush claimed to be tolerant of gays, but he?s on the record as being adamantly opposed to hiring an openly gay person in his Administration. And Dick Cheney was forced to back off on his support for recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. Bush got positively gleeful over sending the three men who dragged James Byrd on the back of a truck to the death chamber, when only two are going (the other got a life sentence). And contrary to what he said in the debate, he did block hate-crimes legislation. Source: Time, p. 62, ?Double Standard? at Wake Forest debate Oct 19, 2000 source
Gail Norton was a big supporter of the Amendment 2 in Colorado, which failed. An amendment that would have voided existing gay rights laws and banned passage of future ones in Colorado. source
Late last week, President Bush announced his intentions to potentially privatize half of the federal work force. This move, which does not require congressional approval, would nullify, for privatized federal workers, a 1998 Executive Order signed by President Clinton that outlaws anti-gay discrimination in the federal work place. While the plan would give private companies the opportunity to bid for federal jobs, it does not require them to abide by non-discrimination policies regarding sexual orientation. source
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said at a morning news conference at the White House Rose Garden. source
Trying to add a tolerant note to an intolerant policy on anti-gay marriage, he allowed that he was "mindful that we're all sinners" showing again his disdain for the separation of church and state. source
WAR:
At the time, the war against Afghanistan made sense to many people, since we had just been attacked by terrorists. But now, given Bush's history, we wonder if we were also misled into that war. Either way, war should not be the first choice. source
Bush is incredibly uncreative when it comes to solving problems. source
It is now evident that we were lied to about Iraq. Sadaam Hussein was demonized (source); his capabilities were exaggerated (source); evidence was forged (source). And in spite of world wide protests (source) and the failure to gain UN (source) or European (source) approval , Bush invaded. There was another way (source), and Bush knew it.
Bush's Policy of Preemption, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, is a danger to the entire world. source
His preemptive policy goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion. source
Syria has of this date only received warnings. But as part of Bush's "axis of evil" Syria is understandable nervous. His continuing threats remind us of the warmongering just before he invaded Iraq: demonize, claim they are a threat to the region, claim that they support terrorists, and claim that they therefore are a danger to the US. Where is the evidence? We certainly hope it's more substantial than what he could gather (and forge) against Saddam Hussein. source
Iran is another member of his "axis" but has the distinction of (maybe) having nuclear weapons or the means to manufacture them. Iran has also been threatened by Bush, who as of this writing says he is "running out of patience." Well, so are the rest of us; we are impatient to get rid of a warmongering president. source
North Korea is yet another "evil" country that Bush has threatened. Does this man only know one way to handle problems? To Bush's credit, he has toned down the rhetoric recently. Maybe he finally understands that we can't wage war against every bad buy in the world. But we doubt it. source
See Honesty above. Bush almost never tells the unadulterated truth, so most everything falls into this category. However, when it comes to matters of war and peace, we have no tolerance at all for his lies. If Bush is bent on killing people, he should become the cowboy he pretends to be, strap on a gun, and buy an airplane ticket to whatever country his beef is with. High Noon. Gunsmoke. Have Gun, Will Travel. source
Bush had an ill-conceived plan for overthrowing Iraq, and an even worse one for establishing democracy, rebuilding infrastructure, and turning over the country to the Iraqis in its aftermath. (source) As of this writing, one US soldier is being killed every day. source
Bush and his cronies refused to estimate the cost of the war when he was whipping up the fever, but now we see that the price for the Iraq invasion will be about $100 billion. My goodness, all the things you can buy with that much money. Think education, health car, highways. See below for the current cost of the war in Iraq: source
(JavaScript Error)
His "shock and awe" campaign to scare the hell out of Iraqi citizens is a brutal attempt at terrorism. May he be called before the International Criminal Court, an institution he loathes. source
As of this writing, the WMDs in Iraq consist of two trailers that could possibly be used for the manufacture of biological weapons (or gas for weather balloons) and some twelve-year-old machinery under a scientist's rose bush. And this is supposedly why we went to war, killing thousands. source
We were told that Iraq had stores of chemical weapons. source
We were told that Iraq had store of biological weapons. source
We were told that the US government knew where these things were. source
We were told that Iraq had an active nuclear program. source
We were told that Iraq had nuclear weapons (ask Cheney about this one) source
We were told that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. source
We were told that aluminum tubes Iraq bought were centrifuge parts, used in concentrating uranium to make bombs. Most experts disagree. source
We were told Iraq had the capability to deliver these weapons. source
We were told they a large number of long-range scud missiles. source
We were told that Iraq had significant ties to al-Qaida, the terrorist group. The evidence consisted of unsubstantiated rumors and reports of one al-Qaida member getting medical treatment in Baghdad. The CIA knows better. source
But the CIA allowed itself to be pressured by the pushy Bush gang into tailoring evidence to fit the foregone conclusion: war. source
When confronted with his lies about Iraq's weapons, rather than take the blame, Bush started pointing fingers. His good Republicans began to fall on their swords, but most Americans saw through the charade; they know where the buck stops. source
With little understanding of Iraq and insufficient planning (noted above) it is no wonder that many are now speaking of "another Vietnam" where we lost 45,000 soldiers (and millions of Vietnamese) over the years of that war. Just how do we leave, after promising peace, prosperity, and democracy, and all we see so far is anarchy and chaos? Wll be leaving on helicopters from the top of the American Embassay.? Do we even have an embassay in Iraq? source
American soldiers are dying almost daily in Iraq. But rather than speeding up democratic processes, Bush and his minions are talking about sending more troops. Too bad LBJ is not around to offer some relevant advice. source
Bush warned the UN of becoming irrelevant unless they went along with his war against Iraq, but when they refused, he defied them and therefore tried to make them irrelevant. But that's part of the plan; the far-right, which Bush represents, has always hated the UN. source
It was spectacularly clear that Americans did not want to go to war with Iraq. But rather than bend to the will of the people, Bust bent that will with lies, innuendo, phoney cowboy talk, and arrogance. source
In most European countries, 80 - 90% of the people were against the war. Most heads of state were against the war. Britain, Bush's only ally, was carried along on the back of a lie, just as Americans were. Now Tony Blair is feeling the heat and may not survive, politically. source
Anyone captured on or near battles in Afghanistan or Iraq have been arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants" which means they lose their Constitutional rights, even if they're American citizens. Thank you, John Ashcroft, for the cynically named USA PATRIOT Act. source
The Bush administration provided poor intelligence to Un inspectors prior to the war. source
Bush claimed that the UN inspectors were not allowed into Iraq, so we attacked. Where in the world was he during the leadup to war? We always thought he was a puppet, but good grief, even puppets could follow that sequence of events. source
Bush barred UN weapons inspectors from Iraq after the war. source
Bush and his gang questioned the patriotism of anyone who failed to support the war. It was a convenient and effective way to make them shut up. Ask Tom Daschel, for one. source
Cowboy George tells the Iraqis "Bring 'em on!" and they did. A number of Americans died because of this idiocy. source
Bush's government set up their own intelligence unit, presumably to further shape facts into fiction. source
Bush said we would not be in Iraq a long time. A few months later, his military leaders are speaking of four years, maybe ten. source*
Bush ignored the long-standing policy against political assisinations. He tried to kill Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hussein's sons (successful for these two). This should count as four reasons. source
He used a drone in Syria to blow up a car suspected of containing terrorists. How many international laws can he break at one time? source
When the hunt for WMDs was not going well, Bush claimed that "we found them" referring to the suspected mobile biological weapons labs. That's what we went to war for? Two empty trailers? source
With no WMDs to be found, Bush tried to shift the focus to WMD programs. Did he really think no one would notice? source
Bush continues the Reaganesque folly of the missile defense shield, which will siphon off billions for a system no one really expects to work. source
He wants to develop tactical nuclear weapons, presumably to blast terrorists out of their caves. May we suggest sending a sqad of soldiers after them, rather than unleash a nuclear holocaust? source
The war against Iraq was planned a decade ago, not triggered by WMDs or any recent event. The neocons have had Iraq in their sights all this time, just waiting for a stooge to come along. They got him. source
One reason for going to war was that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. True (at least most agree) but that was a long time ago. Why was it necessary to rush to war over an offense a dozen years ago? Almost makes you think it wasn't the real reason. source
Although Bush claimed we were going to war against Iraq so Hussein wouldn't use his WMDs, most analysts thought they would only be used if Hussein was attacked. Read the briefings, George. source
Another reason for going to war was to rid the world of evil. So we kill 10,000 or so people to rid the world of evil? Just what adjective would you use to describe that action? source
Bush tried to divide the world into good guys and bad guys: "You're either with us, or you're against us." Most people with gray matter between their ears know that any complicated issue has more than two sides. Isn't it just possible that a "good guy" would choose not to go along with all this killiing? source
Bush and others claimed that terrorists hate our freedom. A closer reading of the root causes of terrorism suggests much more complicated reasons. We suspect most terrorists don't care one way or the other about our freedom. They care more about what we're doing to their culture, their economies, and their political institutions. This is yet one more example of shallow thinking on Bush's part. source
Bush said we must attack other countries and overthrow their governments to make the world safe. We wonder how Bush defines "safety." source
Bush has been doing his best to hinder the probe of intelligence failures preceding the WTC attacks. Why, Goerge, just to stoke the flames of conspiracy theorists? source
The 850 page report on intelligence prior to 9/11 is curiously missing 28 pages. Some say those pages are the ones highlighting what Bush was told and the role of the Saudis. As one reader suggests, this may be the equivalent of the 18 minute gap created by Rosemary Woods to help Nixon cover his Wategate lies. source
Former POWs from the 1991 Gulf War sued Iraq for damages, and won. Now the US government is fighting their monetary award, saying the money is needed to rebuild Iraq. source
Bush declaring the war was over in his pilot's outift. source
Iraqis welcoming the troops with daily bullets and bombs, instead of flowers. source
US troops opened fire on Iraqi protesters. source
US troops shot up the journalists' hotels and Al-Jazeera headquarters killing and injuring several. source
Thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed or injured. source
Hundreds of US troops were killed, with many more injured. source
read more here...........
http://www.thousandreasons.org/newlist.html
08-28-2003 02:37 PM ET (US)
1,000 reasons to dump bush, with source's for each one........
GENDER & SEX
WOMEN'S RIGHTS:
Joining Sudan, Libya and the Vatican, the White House is fighting to delete language requiring that ‘women and adolescent girls have full access to affordable, quality reproductive health care, from the draft document for the UN Special Session on Children. The U.S. maintains this position despite the fact that reproductive health care is a proven way to reduce maternal and infant mortality, which all parties agree is crucial to improve the lives of children. source
Under the Bush proposal, the government would spend $300 million annually on programs promoting marriage, $200 million of which would come from federal dollars and $100 million from matching funds required of the states.
The proposal aims to encourage "the formation and maintenance of two-parent married families and responsible fatherhood" through funding made available for research, demonstrations, technical assistance and matching grants to states. source
Restricting the right to abortion in developing nations is a major foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration; it appeases anti-choice constituents without offending more moderate conservatives. source
Conservatives have consistently blocked attempts to allow overseas servicewomen to have abortions without having to return home. source
Advocates for women agree that Bush is acting to reverse the modest gains made under Bill Clinton. But the White House is moving deftly. In the name of budget cutting, it is closing women's offices in federal agencies, defunding programs that monitor discrimination, and appointing people who oppose affirmative action and welfare for single mothers to policy-making posts. "They're not taking legislation to the Hill and putting it up on high profile," says Martha Burk, who chairs the National Council of Women's Organizations. "They're doing it through regs, policy changes, executive orders. All of this is under the radar for most citizens." source
Take David Hager, Christ's messenger on PMS. As a physician, he refuses to discuss contraception with unwed female patients. Now he's part of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the FDA. An outcry forced Bush to withdraw Hager's nomination to head that panel, which, under Clinton, played a major role in legalizing RU-486, the drug that can terminate a pregnancy at the zygote stage. With the religious right pressing for repeal of that authorization, it remains to be seen who will chair this crucial committee. source
Meanwhile at the Department of Health and Human Services, Wade Horn has been put in charge of family support. A firm believer in using welfare to encourage marriage, Horn has proposed denying benefits to cohabiting couples and withholding money from single mothers until all married couples have been served. source
In the fog of pending war, Bush has moved to dismantle federal bureaus that monitor discrimination against women. source
Bush defunded the women's equity office at the Department of Education (though technically it still exists). source
Bush tried to shut down the Department of Labor's network of regional women's offices. source
Bush closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach. source
One notorious example is our failure to sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. source
The administration has also objected to UN family-planning and AIDS-prevention programs that offer or merely mention condoms. source
According to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. even opposed efforts to provide special rehabilitation for female victims of war crimes, because the measure might be construed as offering information about abortion to girls who have been raped. source
A bill passed by the Republican House would allow health care companies to prevent their doctors from discussing abortion. Here is this decade's version of silence = death. source
Outlawed an abortion procedure that right-to-life groups call "partial birth." The goal is to ultimately outlaw all abortion, but Bush won't admit it. But then he almost never says what he really means. source
Bush wants legal protection for the fetus, not because he's enamored of fetal tissue, but, again, because he really wants to outlaw abortion. We've seen what happens when abortion is outlawed; do we really want to go back to 1971 before Roe v Wade? source
The banned abortion procedure makes no allowance for the health of the mother. Someone should ask Bush why an unborn fetus takes priority over a woman. But don't expect an answer; he will never say anything that might offend a voter. source
Bush believes discrimination against women is less serious that racial or ethnic discrimination. source
Attempted to confer personhood on the fetus. source
Inflated charges against UN Family Planning program. source
Reduced funding for UNFPA. source
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush declares "national sanctity of life day." source
Sought reevaluation of RU-486 "abortion pill." source
Tried to stop contraceptive funding for federal employees. source
2002 budget proposed cutting child and maternal health program. source
On his first day in office, Bush reinstated the global gag rule to hinder family planning. source
Supported the banning of abortions at military hospitals. source
President Bush is trying to stack the federal courts with anti-choice conservative judges. more
W. David Hager, an anti-abortion rights doctor who mixes the practice of medicine and religion, was among eleven physicians appointed on December 24 to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. source
Breast cancer researchers attending a three-day conference at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Maryland, confidently announced yesterday that the strongest statistical evidence shows no elevated breast cancer risk in women who have had abortions. Their findings foil the latest attempts by the Bush Administration and its anti-abortion supporters to impose conservative ideologies on science and medicine. source
The Commission on Opportunity in Athletics recommended sweeping and debilitating changes to Title IX. source
GAY RIGHTS:
Bush has said he simply opposed hate-crime legislation in Texas because he believes that "all crime is hate crime." source
John Ashcroft was a co-sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed in 1996 which bans federal recognition of gay marriages and prohibits spouses in same-sex marriages from receiving federal benefits. source
It is commonly believed that Bush derailed a Texas hate-crime bill in 1999 because it included protections based on sexual orientation. Also that year, Bush supported a measure that banned gay couples from becoming foster parents or from adopting foster children. source
Bush claimed to be tolerant of gays, but he?s on the record as being adamantly opposed to hiring an openly gay person in his Administration. And Dick Cheney was forced to back off on his support for recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. Bush got positively gleeful over sending the three men who dragged James Byrd on the back of a truck to the death chamber, when only two are going (the other got a life sentence). And contrary to what he said in the debate, he did block hate-crimes legislation. Source: Time, p. 62, ?Double Standard? at Wake Forest debate Oct 19, 2000 source
Gail Norton was a big supporter of the Amendment 2 in Colorado, which failed. An amendment that would have voided existing gay rights laws and banned passage of future ones in Colorado. source
Late last week, President Bush announced his intentions to potentially privatize half of the federal work force. This move, which does not require congressional approval, would nullify, for privatized federal workers, a 1998 Executive Order signed by President Clinton that outlaws anti-gay discrimination in the federal work place. While the plan would give private companies the opportunity to bid for federal jobs, it does not require them to abide by non-discrimination policies regarding sexual orientation. source
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said at a morning news conference at the White House Rose Garden. source
Trying to add a tolerant note to an intolerant policy on anti-gay marriage, he allowed that he was "mindful that we're all sinners" showing again his disdain for the separation of church and state. source
WAR:
At the time, the war against Afghanistan made sense to many people, since we had just been attacked by terrorists. But now, given Bush's history, we wonder if we were also misled into that war. Either way, war should not be the first choice. source
Bush is incredibly uncreative when it comes to solving problems. source
It is now evident that we were lied to about Iraq. Sadaam Hussein was demonized (source); his capabilities were exaggerated (source); evidence was forged (source). And in spite of world wide protests (source) and the failure to gain UN (source) or European (source) approval , Bush invaded. There was another way (source), and Bush knew it.
Bush's Policy of Preemption, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, is a danger to the entire world. source
His preemptive policy goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion. source
Syria has of this date only received warnings. But as part of Bush's "axis of evil" Syria is understandable nervous. His continuing threats remind us of the warmongering just before he invaded Iraq: demonize, claim they are a threat to the region, claim that they support terrorists, and claim that they therefore are a danger to the US. Where is the evidence? We certainly hope it's more substantial than what he could gather (and forge) against Saddam Hussein. source
Iran is another member of his "axis" but has the distinction of (maybe) having nuclear weapons or the means to manufacture them. Iran has also been threatened by Bush, who as of this writing says he is "running out of patience." Well, so are the rest of us; we are impatient to get rid of a warmongering president. source
North Korea is yet another "evil" country that Bush has threatened. Does this man only know one way to handle problems? To Bush's credit, he has toned down the rhetoric recently. Maybe he finally understands that we can't wage war against every bad buy in the world. But we doubt it. source
See Honesty above. Bush almost never tells the unadulterated truth, so most everything falls into this category. However, when it comes to matters of war and peace, we have no tolerance at all for his lies. If Bush is bent on killing people, he should become the cowboy he pretends to be, strap on a gun, and buy an airplane ticket to whatever country his beef is with. High Noon. Gunsmoke. Have Gun, Will Travel. source
Bush had an ill-conceived plan for overthrowing Iraq, and an even worse one for establishing democracy, rebuilding infrastructure, and turning over the country to the Iraqis in its aftermath. (source) As of this writing, one US soldier is being killed every day. source
Bush and his cronies refused to estimate the cost of the war when he was whipping up the fever, but now we see that the price for the Iraq invasion will be about $100 billion. My goodness, all the things you can buy with that much money. Think education, health car, highways. See below for the current cost of the war in Iraq: source
(JavaScript Error)
His "shock and awe" campaign to scare the hell out of Iraqi citizens is a brutal attempt at terrorism. May he be called before the International Criminal Court, an institution he loathes. source
As of this writing, the WMDs in Iraq consist of two trailers that could possibly be used for the manufacture of biological weapons (or gas for weather balloons) and some twelve-year-old machinery under a scientist's rose bush. And this is supposedly why we went to war, killing thousands. source
We were told that Iraq had stores of chemical weapons. source
We were told that Iraq had store of biological weapons. source
We were told that the US government knew where these things were. source
We were told that Iraq had an active nuclear program. source
We were told that Iraq had nuclear weapons (ask Cheney about this one) source
We were told that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. source
We were told that aluminum tubes Iraq bought were centrifuge parts, used in concentrating uranium to make bombs. Most experts disagree. source
We were told Iraq had the capability to deliver these weapons. source
We were told they a large number of long-range scud missiles. source
We were told that Iraq had significant ties to al-Qaida, the terrorist group. The evidence consisted of unsubstantiated rumors and reports of one al-Qaida member getting medical treatment in Baghdad. The CIA knows better. source
But the CIA allowed itself to be pressured by the pushy Bush gang into tailoring evidence to fit the foregone conclusion: war. source
When confronted with his lies about Iraq's weapons, rather than take the blame, Bush started pointing fingers. His good Republicans began to fall on their swords, but most Americans saw through the charade; they know where the buck stops. source
With little understanding of Iraq and insufficient planning (noted above) it is no wonder that many are now speaking of "another Vietnam" where we lost 45,000 soldiers (and millions of Vietnamese) over the years of that war. Just how do we leave, after promising peace, prosperity, and democracy, and all we see so far is anarchy and chaos? Wll be leaving on helicopters from the top of the American Embassay.? Do we even have an embassay in Iraq? source
American soldiers are dying almost daily in Iraq. But rather than speeding up democratic processes, Bush and his minions are talking about sending more troops. Too bad LBJ is not around to offer some relevant advice. source
Bush warned the UN of becoming irrelevant unless they went along with his war against Iraq, but when they refused, he defied them and therefore tried to make them irrelevant. But that's part of the plan; the far-right, which Bush represents, has always hated the UN. source
It was spectacularly clear that Americans did not want to go to war with Iraq. But rather than bend to the will of the people, Bust bent that will with lies, innuendo, phoney cowboy talk, and arrogance. source
In most European countries, 80 - 90% of the people were against the war. Most heads of state were against the war. Britain, Bush's only ally, was carried along on the back of a lie, just as Americans were. Now Tony Blair is feeling the heat and may not survive, politically. source
Anyone captured on or near battles in Afghanistan or Iraq have been arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants" which means they lose their Constitutional rights, even if they're American citizens. Thank you, John Ashcroft, for the cynically named USA PATRIOT Act. source
The Bush administration provided poor intelligence to Un inspectors prior to the war. source
Bush claimed that the UN inspectors were not allowed into Iraq, so we attacked. Where in the world was he during the leadup to war? We always thought he was a puppet, but good grief, even puppets could follow that sequence of events. source
Bush barred UN weapons inspectors from Iraq after the war. source
Bush and his gang questioned the patriotism of anyone who failed to support the war. It was a convenient and effective way to make them shut up. Ask Tom Daschel, for one. source
Cowboy George tells the Iraqis "Bring 'em on!" and they did. A number of Americans died because of this idiocy. source
Bush's government set up their own intelligence unit, presumably to further shape facts into fiction. source
Bush said we would not be in Iraq a long time. A few months later, his military leaders are speaking of four years, maybe ten. source*
Bush ignored the long-standing policy against political assisinations. He tried to kill Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hussein's sons (successful for these two). This should count as four reasons. source
He used a drone in Syria to blow up a car suspected of containing terrorists. How many international laws can he break at one time? source
When the hunt for WMDs was not going well, Bush claimed that "we found them" referring to the suspected mobile biological weapons labs. That's what we went to war for? Two empty trailers? source
With no WMDs to be found, Bush tried to shift the focus to WMD programs. Did he really think no one would notice? source
Bush continues the Reaganesque folly of the missile defense shield, which will siphon off billions for a system no one really expects to work. source
He wants to develop tactical nuclear weapons, presumably to blast terrorists out of their caves. May we suggest sending a sqad of soldiers after them, rather than unleash a nuclear holocaust? source
The war against Iraq was planned a decade ago, not triggered by WMDs or any recent event. The neocons have had Iraq in their sights all this time, just waiting for a stooge to come along. They got him. source
One reason for going to war was that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. True (at least most agree) but that was a long time ago. Why was it necessary to rush to war over an offense a dozen years ago? Almost makes you think it wasn't the real reason. source
Although Bush claimed we were going to war against Iraq so Hussein wouldn't use his WMDs, most analysts thought they would only be used if Hussein was attacked. Read the briefings, George. source
Another reason for going to war was to rid the world of evil. So we kill 10,000 or so people to rid the world of evil? Just what adjective would you use to describe that action? source
Bush tried to divide the world into good guys and bad guys: "You're either with us, or you're against us." Most people with gray matter between their ears know that any complicated issue has more than two sides. Isn't it just possible that a "good guy" would choose not to go along with all this killiing? source
Bush and others claimed that terrorists hate our freedom. A closer reading of the root causes of terrorism suggests much more complicated reasons. We suspect most terrorists don't care one way or the other about our freedom. They care more about what we're doing to their culture, their economies, and their political institutions. This is yet one more example of shallow thinking on Bush's part. source
Bush said we must attack other countries and overthrow their governments to make the world safe. We wonder how Bush defines "safety." source
Bush has been doing his best to hinder the probe of intelligence failures preceding the WTC attacks. Why, Goerge, just to stoke the flames of conspiracy theorists? source
The 850 page report on intelligence prior to 9/11 is curiously missing 28 pages. Some say those pages are the ones highlighting what Bush was told and the role of the Saudis. As one reader suggests, this may be the equivalent of the 18 minute gap created by Rosemary Woods to help Nixon cover his Wategate lies. source
Former POWs from the 1991 Gulf War sued Iraq for damages, and won. Now the US government is fighting their monetary award, saying the money is needed to rebuild Iraq. source
Bush declaring the war was over in his pilot's outift. source
Iraqis welcoming the troops with daily bullets and bombs, instead of flowers. source
US troops opened fire on Iraqi protesters. source
US troops shot up the journalists' hotels and Al-Jazeera headquarters killing and injuring several. source
Thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed or injured. source
Hundreds of US troops were killed, with many more injured. source
read more here...........
http://www.thousandreasons.org/newlist.html
Keith Brekhus 890
08-28-2003 03:47 PM ET (US)
Actually thats 1030 reasons to dump Bush, although if I read every single one I might find thirty I disagree with, which would still leave 1000 reasons to dump him :-).
08-28-2003 03:47 PM ET (US)
Actually thats 1030 reasons to dump Bush, although if I read every single one I might find thirty I disagree with, which would still leave 1000 reasons to dump him :-).
Ann & Steven Bohannon 891
08-28-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
Hi everybody this is Ann Stewart. I just got home from work. So give me a minute to go over your comments now. Also Steven Bohannon sent me this comment when I emailed him and asked him about the California election, because he lives in Sacramento CA. Read this email to me from Steven:
Ann Stewart: Steven who do you think will end up being your next Governor?
Steven Bohannon: Well, Cruz Bustamante, the Democratic Lieutenant Governor, is leading in the polls right now. The recall initiative is losing support, although still supported by a majority of voters. The other Republicans in the field seem to be pulling some support away from Arnold. The debate--scheduled, I believe, for September 30th—will probably be influential in who wins the governorship.
Take care Ann,
Bro. Steve
08-28-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
Hi everybody this is Ann Stewart. I just got home from work. So give me a minute to go over your comments now. Also Steven Bohannon sent me this comment when I emailed him and asked him about the California election, because he lives in Sacramento CA. Read this email to me from Steven:
Ann Stewart: Steven who do you think will end up being your next Governor?
Steven Bohannon: Well, Cruz Bustamante, the Democratic Lieutenant Governor, is leading in the polls right now. The recall initiative is losing support, although still supported by a majority of voters. The other Republicans in the field seem to be pulling some support away from Arnold. The debate--scheduled, I believe, for September 30th—will probably be influential in who wins the governorship.
Take care Ann,
Bro. Steve
Keith Brekhus 892
08-28-2003 03:57 PM ET (US)
Arnold's campaign might have jumped the shark already. I don't know that Gray Davis can survive, but he is putting up a fight.
If I was to wager money today, I would take Bustamante, but I still think Arnold could win or Davis could survive. I believe these are the only three realistic possibilities right now.
Maybe McClintock and Uberoth are huge longshots. Nobody else has a prayer.
08-28-2003 03:57 PM ET (US)
Arnold's campaign might have jumped the shark already. I don't know that Gray Davis can survive, but he is putting up a fight.
If I was to wager money today, I would take Bustamante, but I still think Arnold could win or Davis could survive. I believe these are the only three realistic possibilities right now.
Maybe McClintock and Uberoth are huge longshots. Nobody else has a prayer.
Ann Stewart 893
08-28-2003 04:33 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 04:33 PM
Steven said the same thing about Cruz Bustamante and Steven is
really smart at this kinda stuff, but in the last Presidential election he called it wrong, because he said he thought Gore would win the election and Bush would win the popular vote…But he has called a lot of them right. So Steven and me are kinda laying down bets again.
Keith your pretty good at doing predictions you said you called the last one right or I think I remember you saying that. So what do you predict now on any election?
You know if you get all this stuff you predict correct, I really am going to send you a big box of cookies or something, cause you made this debate great. Well all of you have, to me it is so good to be able to hear every bodies opinion on such an interesting subject.
08-28-2003 04:33 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 04:33 PM
Steven said the same thing about Cruz Bustamante and Steven is
really smart at this kinda stuff, but in the last Presidential election he called it wrong, because he said he thought Gore would win the election and Bush would win the popular vote…But he has called a lot of them right. So Steven and me are kinda laying down bets again.
Keith your pretty good at doing predictions you said you called the last one right or I think I remember you saying that. So what do you predict now on any election?
You know if you get all this stuff you predict correct, I really am going to send you a big box of cookies or something, cause you made this debate great. Well all of you have, to me it is so good to be able to hear every bodies opinion on such an interesting subject.
Keith Brekhus 894
08-28-2003 04:54 PM ET (US)
I did predict Bush in 2000, but gave him too much of an edge (I had him pegged for about 315 Electoral Votes and he only ended up with 271).
My early predictions (subject to revision later) :-)
CA Governor: Recall passes 54-46%. Bustamante wins with 39%, Arnold ends up second with 34%.
3rd Quarter fundraising: Dean shocks everyone by raising 17 million dollars in the third quarter. Next closest is Gephardt raising 7 million.
Democratic Primaries: Dean pulls 1-2 victory punch in Iowa and New Hampshire and becomes all but unstoppable, securing the nomination by March 2nd.
VP selection: Dean chooses Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
General election: Bush wins 298-240 Electoral votes. Popular vote-- Bush 51- Dean 48% with 1% for other candidates
08-28-2003 04:54 PM ET (US)
I did predict Bush in 2000, but gave him too much of an edge (I had him pegged for about 315 Electoral Votes and he only ended up with 271).
My early predictions (subject to revision later) :-)
CA Governor: Recall passes 54-46%. Bustamante wins with 39%, Arnold ends up second with 34%.
3rd Quarter fundraising: Dean shocks everyone by raising 17 million dollars in the third quarter. Next closest is Gephardt raising 7 million.
Democratic Primaries: Dean pulls 1-2 victory punch in Iowa and New Hampshire and becomes all but unstoppable, securing the nomination by March 2nd.
VP selection: Dean chooses Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
General election: Bush wins 298-240 Electoral votes. Popular vote-- Bush 51- Dean 48% with 1% for other candidates
Keith Brekhus 895
08-28-2003 06:28 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 06:29 PM
my presidential prediction caveat:
If Wesley Clark enters the presidential race that could stall Dean's momentum and open an avenue for Gephardt or Clark to win the nomination instead of Dean (Clark's entry would also hurt Lieberman and Kerry).
By the way, Hilary Clinton won't enter (though that rumor has resurfaced in the press) but Clark certainly might.
08-28-2003 06:28 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-28-2003 06:29 PM
my presidential prediction caveat:
If Wesley Clark enters the presidential race that could stall Dean's momentum and open an avenue for Gephardt or Clark to win the nomination instead of Dean (Clark's entry would also hurt Lieberman and Kerry).
By the way, Hilary Clinton won't enter (though that rumor has resurfaced in the press) but Clark certainly might.
Ann Stewart 896
08-28-2003 06:51 PM ET (US)
I have a friend at work his name is Will Parker. He's suppose to give us his comments on all of this. He told me yesterday he thought Wesley Clark was going to win this election and he said he would come to the debate and tell us why. So maybe we will hear from him soon.
08-28-2003 06:51 PM ET (US)
I have a friend at work his name is Will Parker. He's suppose to give us his comments on all of this. He told me yesterday he thought Wesley Clark was going to win this election and he said he would come to the debate and tell us why. So maybe we will hear from him soon.
Keith Brekhus 897
08-28-2003 09:12 PM ET (US)
The latest on Wesley Clark...
http://www.iht.com/articles/108094.html
08-28-2003 09:12 PM ET (US)
The latest on Wesley Clark...
http://www.iht.com/articles/108094.html
Ann Stewart 898
08-28-2003 10:24 PM ET (US)
Hey thanks for that link Keith
It's been a slow night. I guess everybody is running out of things to say or something.
I just read that article on Clark. I was hoping Dean wouldn't have to much computation. I kinda hope Clark stays out of it, but if he runs people are saying he's got a good chance to win. I just hope he can win against Bush. I’m not trying to pick on Bush incase Jenny punches in tonight, but I really hope he doesn’t win again. Don’t hate me for saying that Jen.
08-28-2003 10:24 PM ET (US)
Hey thanks for that link Keith
It's been a slow night. I guess everybody is running out of things to say or something.
I just read that article on Clark. I was hoping Dean wouldn't have to much computation. I kinda hope Clark stays out of it, but if he runs people are saying he's got a good chance to win. I just hope he can win against Bush. I’m not trying to pick on Bush incase Jenny punches in tonight, but I really hope he doesn’t win again. Don’t hate me for saying that Jen.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 899
08-28-2003 11:31 PM ET (US)
People read this:
The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003
President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 on May 28, 2003 and is a victory for American workers, American families, American investors and American entrepreneurs and small businesses.
This law will enable the American people to keep more of their own money, and the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is that people looking for work will find a job.
In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003.
68 million women will see their taxes decline, on average, by $1,338.
45 million married couples will receive average tax cuts of $1,786.
34 million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549.
6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558.
12 million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401.
23 million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209.
3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by the Act.
Example: A married couple with two children and income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 by $1,133-from $1,178 to $45 in 2003, a decline of 96 percent.
Families with children will get relief quickly due to the acceleration of the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. Beginning in mid-July, the Treasury Department will issue checks of $400 per child to taxpayers who claimed a child tax credit on their 2002 return. Most taxpayers will see their paychecks grow as companies reduce the amount of tax withheld to reflect reduced tax rates.
Congress is to be applauded for getting this bill to the President's desk promptly.
The President is optimistic that the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 will grow the economy and create new jobs. The President will not be satisfied until every American who is looking for work can find it; every business has a chance to grow; and prosperity reaches every corner of America.
This is how Bush will take care of us. Jen
08-28-2003 11:31 PM ET (US)
People read this:
The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003
President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 on May 28, 2003 and is a victory for American workers, American families, American investors and American entrepreneurs and small businesses.
This law will enable the American people to keep more of their own money, and the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is that people looking for work will find a job.
In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003.
68 million women will see their taxes decline, on average, by $1,338.
45 million married couples will receive average tax cuts of $1,786.
34 million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549.
6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558.
12 million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401.
23 million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209.
3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by the Act.
Example: A married couple with two children and income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 by $1,133-from $1,178 to $45 in 2003, a decline of 96 percent.
Families with children will get relief quickly due to the acceleration of the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. Beginning in mid-July, the Treasury Department will issue checks of $400 per child to taxpayers who claimed a child tax credit on their 2002 return. Most taxpayers will see their paychecks grow as companies reduce the amount of tax withheld to reflect reduced tax rates.
Congress is to be applauded for getting this bill to the President's desk promptly.
The President is optimistic that the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 will grow the economy and create new jobs. The President will not be satisfied until every American who is looking for work can find it; every business has a chance to grow; and prosperity reaches every corner of America.
This is how Bush will take care of us. Jen
Keith Brekhus 900
08-29-2003 12:06 AM ET (US)
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: DUMP BUSH.....
“Support our Troops” should be more than a slogan, it should mean something. Personally, I am outraged that the Bush administration and his allies in Congress have exploited this slogan but given the troops nothing but lip service as they lay their lives on the line day after day. Here is a link worth checking out…
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
Then read this article from the Armed Forces, Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
More problems….
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6537277.htm
Letters published in Stars and Stripes describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/homelessvet030822.html
She collapsed in 130-degree heat. She had heart failure, went into a coma and was flown to a military hospital in Germany.
"Going down the hallway, I can hear the guy saying, 'This soldier's not going to make it,' " Turner told ABCNEWS. "And I'm trying my best to tell them, 'Don't let me die; I'm going to make this.' I was trying to move my fingers and toes to tell them, 'Don't let me die.' "
Because the Army doctors thought Turner, 41, was going to die, they gave her a medical discharge
But then Turner recovered.
When she got out of the hospital, however, she found herself out of the Army, out of a job and out of her home.
"My life was on the line in Iraq," said Turner. "I almost died. I was in a coma for two days. And I come back and I'm living on a couch? That's not right."
And that's not all.
When she asked the Army to ship her personal belongings back from the base in Germany, they told her she'd have to pay her own way back to collect them.
Ron Conley, national commander of the American Legion, says these are not isolated incidents.
"This is a problem occurring with all veterans," said Conley. "Current veterans that we're making today are facing the same problem that previous veterans are facing. One of the messages that we sent to President Bush and the members of Congress is: We appropriate money to fight a war; there's an additional cost to that war and that's the health care of the men and women that fight that war."
The anger from military families and upset soldiers is finally making the news. Here is but one example.
http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/p...08-21-03-91378.html
To show their disdain, the Vogels have hung a sign outside their business, Assured Staffing, on Main Street, stating: "Proud of our soldier! Ashamed of our president!"
Vogel just attended the funeral of a 40-year-old reservist from Aaron's unit, a Wisconsin man who was killed and whose three children are fatherless after the truck he was driving in convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
280 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 1200 have been wounded, but Bush has yet to attend a single funeral for one of the slain soldiers. Instead he has cut their imminent danger pay, their family-separation allowance, their Veterans and Health Care benefits and he has exploited their sacrifices in 120 degree heat, to enrich Dick Cheney’s Halliburton firm…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6429-2003Aug27.html
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
If you truly care about our men and women in uniform, vote Bush out in 2004!!!
--Keith Brekhus--
08-29-2003 12:06 AM ET (US)
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: DUMP BUSH.....
“Support our Troops” should be more than a slogan, it should mean something. Personally, I am outraged that the Bush administration and his allies in Congress have exploited this slogan but given the troops nothing but lip service as they lay their lives on the line day after day. Here is a link worth checking out…
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
Then read this article from the Armed Forces, Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
More problems….
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6537277.htm
Letters published in Stars and Stripes describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/homelessvet030822.html
She collapsed in 130-degree heat. She had heart failure, went into a coma and was flown to a military hospital in Germany.
"Going down the hallway, I can hear the guy saying, 'This soldier's not going to make it,' " Turner told ABCNEWS. "And I'm trying my best to tell them, 'Don't let me die; I'm going to make this.' I was trying to move my fingers and toes to tell them, 'Don't let me die.' "
Because the Army doctors thought Turner, 41, was going to die, they gave her a medical discharge
But then Turner recovered.
When she got out of the hospital, however, she found herself out of the Army, out of a job and out of her home.
"My life was on the line in Iraq," said Turner. "I almost died. I was in a coma for two days. And I come back and I'm living on a couch? That's not right."
And that's not all.
When she asked the Army to ship her personal belongings back from the base in Germany, they told her she'd have to pay her own way back to collect them.
Ron Conley, national commander of the American Legion, says these are not isolated incidents.
"This is a problem occurring with all veterans," said Conley. "Current veterans that we're making today are facing the same problem that previous veterans are facing. One of the messages that we sent to President Bush and the members of Congress is: We appropriate money to fight a war; there's an additional cost to that war and that's the health care of the men and women that fight that war."
The anger from military families and upset soldiers is finally making the news. Here is but one example.
http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/p...08-21-03-91378.html
To show their disdain, the Vogels have hung a sign outside their business, Assured Staffing, on Main Street, stating: "Proud of our soldier! Ashamed of our president!"
Vogel just attended the funeral of a 40-year-old reservist from Aaron's unit, a Wisconsin man who was killed and whose three children are fatherless after the truck he was driving in convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
280 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 1200 have been wounded, but Bush has yet to attend a single funeral for one of the slain soldiers. Instead he has cut their imminent danger pay, their family-separation allowance, their Veterans and Health Care benefits and he has exploited their sacrifices in 120 degree heat, to enrich Dick Cheney’s Halliburton firm…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6429-2003Aug27.html
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
If you truly care about our men and women in uniform, vote Bush out in 2004!!!
--Keith Brekhus--
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 901
08-29-2003 12:07 AM ET (US)
Zogby International’s “Road to Boston” Series New Nationwide Zogby Poll of Likely Democratic Primary Voters Shows Gephardt, Dean, Lieberman Tied for Lead; 69% Say Bush Re-Election Likely
08-29-2003 12:07 AM ET (US)
Zogby International’s “Road to Boston” Series New Nationwide Zogby Poll of Likely Democratic Primary Voters Shows Gephardt, Dean, Lieberman Tied for Lead; 69% Say Bush Re-Election Likely
Keith Brekhus 902
08-29-2003 12:49 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 12:51 AM
The average tax cut numbers are misleading because they use mean instead of median.
For example if you live in Tennessee like Ann and earn 8,700 dollars a year your tax cut will be 5 dollars next year and only 18 dollars for the next four years put together.
If you earn 19,000 a year you will get 68 dollars back this year, but only 5 dollars in 2005 and 3 dollars in 2006 (not even enough for a movie).
Now if you are very wealthy and earn 700,000 a year then you will get huge federal tax cuts (68,000 in the next four years)
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb03det.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf
Very few taxpayers will get the amounts Jen reports,because they have misleadingly used averages that are the mean rather than the median.
example:
Ten people's incomes:
5000, 5000, 5000, 5000, 6000, 6000, 8000, 8000, 10000, 1 billion
average income using median : 6000
(half the people make over 6000 and half make under)
average income using mean: over 100 million dollars
(so in this room of nine people who earn 10,000 a year or less, because there is one billionaire the "average income" per person is 100 million even though 90% of the people are poor).
When dealing with comparative wealth, the relevant averages are median not mean. The Bushies are doing psychological tricks when they say the "average tax cut" and then use means rather than medians....
08-29-2003 12:49 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 12:51 AM
The average tax cut numbers are misleading because they use mean instead of median.
For example if you live in Tennessee like Ann and earn 8,700 dollars a year your tax cut will be 5 dollars next year and only 18 dollars for the next four years put together.
If you earn 19,000 a year you will get 68 dollars back this year, but only 5 dollars in 2005 and 3 dollars in 2006 (not even enough for a movie).
Now if you are very wealthy and earn 700,000 a year then you will get huge federal tax cuts (68,000 in the next four years)
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb03det.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf
Very few taxpayers will get the amounts Jen reports,because they have misleadingly used averages that are the mean rather than the median.
example:
Ten people's incomes:
5000, 5000, 5000, 5000, 6000, 6000, 8000, 8000, 10000, 1 billion
average income using median : 6000
(half the people make over 6000 and half make under)
average income using mean: over 100 million dollars
(so in this room of nine people who earn 10,000 a year or less, because there is one billionaire the "average income" per person is 100 million even though 90% of the people are poor).
When dealing with comparative wealth, the relevant averages are median not mean. The Bushies are doing psychological tricks when they say the "average tax cut" and then use means rather than medians....
Keith Brekhus 903
08-29-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 12:54 AM
the typical tax cut is 120 dollars the first year and then it drops to ZERO after that. See my discussion of mean and median below to understand how this works...
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf
08-29-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 12:54 AM
the typical tax cut is 120 dollars the first year and then it drops to ZERO after that. See my discussion of mean and median below to understand how this works...
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf
Ann Stewart 904
08-29-2003 12:57 AM ET (US)
Oh my do you guys ever sleep? I just dropped in to say good night. Everybody sleep tight.
08-29-2003 12:57 AM ET (US)
Oh my do you guys ever sleep? I just dropped in to say good night. Everybody sleep tight.
Keith Brekhus 905
08-29-2003 01:11 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 01:14 AM
In addition, the federal tax cuts will be offset by increases in state and local taxes to cover the ensuing revenue shortfalls.
In effect what happens is the federal government will amass huge budget deficits (projected to be 500-700 billion next year) and it will in turn starve the states for revenue by requiring unfunded mandates.
When states raise sales taxes and property taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for the federal tax cut, what is in effect happening is that money is being transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.
For your 120 dollars that you will get (average person out there) in federal tax cuts, you can probably expect your state sales taxes and local taxes to go up more than the 120 dollars you receive from the Feds.
In addition, you can expect to see essential services cut...
When you drive to work next winter and get stuck because the city can't afford to plow your street, that is the tax cut at work.
When your kid's classroom is overcrowded, that is the tax cut at work.
When the police or the fire department takes 15 minutes longer to get to your house in an emergency, thank Bush for the tax cut.
When you finally arrive at the hospital, but can't get treated for your burns from the fire because the hospital is grossly understaffed, that is your tax cut at work.
When you don't get a raise or you get laid off, thank the tax cut.
Is it really worth it to lose all those services so some millionaire can get 80,000 dollars in tax cuts while you get 120 dollars over the next four years?
Read the fine print people...working Americans are getting the shaft with the Bush tax cut.
08-29-2003 01:11 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-29-2003 01:14 AM
In addition, the federal tax cuts will be offset by increases in state and local taxes to cover the ensuing revenue shortfalls.
In effect what happens is the federal government will amass huge budget deficits (projected to be 500-700 billion next year) and it will in turn starve the states for revenue by requiring unfunded mandates.
When states raise sales taxes and property taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for the federal tax cut, what is in effect happening is that money is being transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.
For your 120 dollars that you will get (average person out there) in federal tax cuts, you can probably expect your state sales taxes and local taxes to go up more than the 120 dollars you receive from the Feds.
In addition, you can expect to see essential services cut...
When you drive to work next winter and get stuck because the city can't afford to plow your street, that is the tax cut at work.
When your kid's classroom is overcrowded, that is the tax cut at work.
When the police or the fire department takes 15 minutes longer to get to your house in an emergency, thank Bush for the tax cut.
When you finally arrive at the hospital, but can't get treated for your burns from the fire because the hospital is grossly understaffed, that is your tax cut at work.
When you don't get a raise or you get laid off, thank the tax cut.
Is it really worth it to lose all those services so some millionaire can get 80,000 dollars in tax cuts while you get 120 dollars over the next four years?
Read the fine print people...working Americans are getting the shaft with the Bush tax cut.
Lysa 906
08-29-2003 08:46 AM ET (US)
Keith,
thank you for the information, analysis, and summary on the tax info!
08-29-2003 08:46 AM ET (US)
Keith,
thank you for the information, analysis, and summary on the tax info!
doug in indiana 907
08-29-2003 10:34 AM ET (US)
yes, thank you for the tax info, ctj.org is one of my fav sites also.
people be aware of the tricks they play with numbers, like our good brother pointed out.
dont be fooled with the smoke and mirrors.
lets just be up front about it, we dont need tax cuts, we pay some of the lowest taxes in the world, what we do need is for companys to pay their 35% amt tax.
and the rich to pay there taxes(more rich people paid less taxes this year then anytime in history.)
which of course means someone has to pay for services(hence state upping taxes and fees felt by middle to lower classes)
just make every pay what they should and spend it wisely(no 600 dollar toilet seats please)
08-29-2003 10:34 AM ET (US)
yes, thank you for the tax info, ctj.org is one of my fav sites also.
people be aware of the tricks they play with numbers, like our good brother pointed out.
dont be fooled with the smoke and mirrors.
lets just be up front about it, we dont need tax cuts, we pay some of the lowest taxes in the world, what we do need is for companys to pay their 35% amt tax.
and the rich to pay there taxes(more rich people paid less taxes this year then anytime in history.)
which of course means someone has to pay for services(hence state upping taxes and fees felt by middle to lower classes)
just make every pay what they should and spend it wisely(no 600 dollar toilet seats please)
Keith Brekhus 908
08-29-2003 11:11 AM ET (US)
DEAN'S FUNDRAISING SUCCESS (with credit to Steve Gilliard)
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Howard Dean has a lot of cash.
More cash than any Democratic candidate has ever had.
What makes Dean's operation so formidable?
He has found a way to get cheap money.
In any campaign, most of the time and effort is devoted to holding fundraisers. So you have the candidate run from pillar to post meeting executives and movie people and begging for cash. He has to bend the ear of a lot of people. This process takes months and inflicts a bunch of rubber chicken (or in Bush's case, hot dogs and burgers) on people. So you don't get much strategy from campaigns during the fundraising period.
By collecting so much money on the web, Dean can start to focus on Bush as a target, Not just in speeches, but on TV. He can go to tv early and stay there. Which is a tremendous advantage. Not only that, but it costs him almost nothing to get that money from the web. So he's spending pennies per dollar raised. It gives him the flexibility to move around the country and stay visible. His people, knowing that the web allows them to raise money, raise it quickly and raise it cheaply, can plot to run campaign swings like the Sleepless Summer Tour.
What has to scare the other campaigns is that with Dean estimated to raise $10.3m in a normally dormant 3Q, they have no way of knowing how much he can raise in the far more active 4Q. He could easily raise double that as his profile grows.
That money means he can pay staff, not go into debt and run TV ads. He can also target his pitches to the money people carefully. He doesn't have to keep hitting them up. He can go to them and say "we've raised X percentage from online fundraising, we have a popular message". When he goes to Hollywood, people can already see that he's got money coming in. When he goes to Wall Street, he can say the same thing. He won't have to beg them for last minute cash either.
What this does is make it hard to give to other campaigns and forestalls late entries. Because it sends two messages. One, this Dean guy has a lot of support. Why should we give to you instead of him. Two, he has such a money lead and such an efficient way of getting it, how can you match it? The Dean money machine is starting to choke off support to every other candidate. Kerry is doing the best, but it's because of his resume. Gephardt's problem is that he's getting mercy support, but Dean union support is growing. Unions have to be wondering if Gephardt is a ticket to nowhere. A lot of the union activists have to wonder if backing Dean now might serve them well in 2005. Graham, Edwards and Lieberman are being choked off by a lack of cash and exposure.
Why does Dean have such a lead in fundraising?
He bet against the war. Simple as that. And as the war goes south, he benefits. Even if we stablize Iraq, Dean's skepticism has been validated. Lieberman, who still truly supports the war, has been sliding towards oblivion. You won't read that in the papers, but the race so far has turned into a national security refendum and Dean is winning it handily. The only reason Clark would even consider entering the race, and the Dean money lead has frozen him in place, is because of the same issues. Unfortunately for him, there is so little daylight between him and Dean on these issues, his resume is the only outstanding factor in his favor.
The reason people need to pay attention to the money is that is what the pros do. Howard Dean may be your average doctor, well-meaning, slightly arrogant and bossy, but he's an above average fundraiser. Which has caught everyone by surprise.
08-29-2003 11:11 AM ET (US)
DEAN'S FUNDRAISING SUCCESS (with credit to Steve Gilliard)
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Howard Dean has a lot of cash.
More cash than any Democratic candidate has ever had.
What makes Dean's operation so formidable?
He has found a way to get cheap money.
In any campaign, most of the time and effort is devoted to holding fundraisers. So you have the candidate run from pillar to post meeting executives and movie people and begging for cash. He has to bend the ear of a lot of people. This process takes months and inflicts a bunch of rubber chicken (or in Bush's case, hot dogs and burgers) on people. So you don't get much strategy from campaigns during the fundraising period.
By collecting so much money on the web, Dean can start to focus on Bush as a target, Not just in speeches, but on TV. He can go to tv early and stay there. Which is a tremendous advantage. Not only that, but it costs him almost nothing to get that money from the web. So he's spending pennies per dollar raised. It gives him the flexibility to move around the country and stay visible. His people, knowing that the web allows them to raise money, raise it quickly and raise it cheaply, can plot to run campaign swings like the Sleepless Summer Tour.
What has to scare the other campaigns is that with Dean estimated to raise $10.3m in a normally dormant 3Q, they have no way of knowing how much he can raise in the far more active 4Q. He could easily raise double that as his profile grows.
That money means he can pay staff, not go into debt and run TV ads. He can also target his pitches to the money people carefully. He doesn't have to keep hitting them up. He can go to them and say "we've raised X percentage from online fundraising, we have a popular message". When he goes to Hollywood, people can already see that he's got money coming in. When he goes to Wall Street, he can say the same thing. He won't have to beg them for last minute cash either.
What this does is make it hard to give to other campaigns and forestalls late entries. Because it sends two messages. One, this Dean guy has a lot of support. Why should we give to you instead of him. Two, he has such a money lead and such an efficient way of getting it, how can you match it? The Dean money machine is starting to choke off support to every other candidate. Kerry is doing the best, but it's because of his resume. Gephardt's problem is that he's getting mercy support, but Dean union support is growing. Unions have to be wondering if Gephardt is a ticket to nowhere. A lot of the union activists have to wonder if backing Dean now might serve them well in 2005. Graham, Edwards and Lieberman are being choked off by a lack of cash and exposure.
Why does Dean have such a lead in fundraising?
He bet against the war. Simple as that. And as the war goes south, he benefits. Even if we stablize Iraq, Dean's skepticism has been validated. Lieberman, who still truly supports the war, has been sliding towards oblivion. You won't read that in the papers, but the race so far has turned into a national security refendum and Dean is winning it handily. The only reason Clark would even consider entering the race, and the Dean money lead has frozen him in place, is because of the same issues. Unfortunately for him, there is so little daylight between him and Dean on these issues, his resume is the only outstanding factor in his favor.
The reason people need to pay attention to the money is that is what the pros do. Howard Dean may be your average doctor, well-meaning, slightly arrogant and bossy, but he's an above average fundraiser. Which has caught everyone by surprise.
Wayne in Missouri 909
08-29-2003 12:57 PM ET (US)
The cost of war in Iraq: in addition to the human costs in terms of lost lives the financial costs of the war are outrageous.
Check the counter here to see how much of our money is being spent there:
http://www.costofwar.com/
08-29-2003 12:57 PM ET (US)
The cost of war in Iraq: in addition to the human costs in terms of lost lives the financial costs of the war are outrageous.
Check the counter here to see how much of our money is being spent there:
http://www.costofwar.com/
doug in indiana 910
08-29-2003 01:49 PM ET (US)
nice keith, also thanks for the link wayne.
guys here is a link to help you keep track of companys sec filings.
lets keep our eyes on these greedy basterds.
http://www.freeedgar.com/
08-29-2003 01:49 PM ET (US)
nice keith, also thanks for the link wayne.
guys here is a link to help you keep track of companys sec filings.
lets keep our eyes on these greedy basterds.
http://www.freeedgar.com/
doug in indiana 911
08-29-2003 02:25 PM ET (US)
to help keep track of who is giving who money in this race, goto this site.
http://www.fecinfo.com
08-29-2003 02:25 PM ET (US)
to help keep track of who is giving who money in this race, goto this site.
http://www.fecinfo.com
Ann Stewart 912
08-29-2003 04:18 PM ET (US)
Hi
Everybody I'm working on some highlights of this debate right now. I will post them on all the blogs, probably in an hour or so. Thanks for comments. I'm putting together the most funny,interesting comments and fights I can find that came out of this debate. Doug and Patti you will probably be the main stars of this editing job
08-29-2003 04:18 PM ET (US)
Hi
Everybody I'm working on some highlights of this debate right now. I will post them on all the blogs, probably in an hour or so. Thanks for comments. I'm putting together the most funny,interesting comments and fights I can find that came out of this debate. Doug and Patti you will probably be the main stars of this editing job
Ann Stewart 913
08-29-2003 05:56 PM ET (US)
Hey folks if you get a chance go check out my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I put comments on that page that just really stuck out in my mind from this election debate.
08-29-2003 05:56 PM ET (US)
Hey folks if you get a chance go check out my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I put comments on that page that just really stuck out in my mind from this election debate.
sindhu kumar 914
08-29-2003 07:04 PM ET (US)
hey gals and guys: CNN is hosting a democratic presidential debate on october 9th 2003 in phoenix, arizona. Msnbc and CNBC are hosting one in new york city on september 25th. PBS is hosting another debate on september 4 in alberquerque. detroit is hosting the last of teh democratic presidential debates on october 26, 2003
08-29-2003 07:04 PM ET (US)
hey gals and guys: CNN is hosting a democratic presidential debate on october 9th 2003 in phoenix, arizona. Msnbc and CNBC are hosting one in new york city on september 25th. PBS is hosting another debate on september 4 in alberquerque. detroit is hosting the last of teh democratic presidential debates on october 26, 2003
sindhu kumar 916
08-29-2003 10:32 PM ET (US)
lads/lassies: CNN is airing a debate between the presidents of the college democrats of america and the college republicans of america this weekend
08-29-2003 10:32 PM ET (US)
lads/lassies: CNN is airing a debate between the presidents of the college democrats of america and the college republicans of america this weekend
Ann Stewart 917
08-29-2003 10:51 PM ET (US)
Do you know what time that will be Sindhu? Remember I live in Central time.
08-29-2003 10:51 PM ET (US)
Do you know what time that will be Sindhu? Remember I live in Central time.
sindhu kumar 918
08-29-2003 10:53 PM ET (US)
it will be 11 a.m eastern time zone. this will be right round late edition with wolf blitzer.
08-29-2003 10:53 PM ET (US)
it will be 11 a.m eastern time zone. this will be right round late edition with wolf blitzer.
Ann Stewart 919
08-29-2003 10:58 PM ET (US)
Sindhu
Did you get my email yet? Meet me at the new Gupta Comments place. There is a link to it from my blog it says Dr. Gupta2 I will meet you there.
08-29-2003 10:58 PM ET (US)
Sindhu
Did you get my email yet? Meet me at the new Gupta Comments place. There is a link to it from my blog it says Dr. Gupta2 I will meet you there.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 920
08-30-2003 12:11 AM ET (US)
Ann I just read you high lights. you would think me and Doug was enemies. Doug I'm not your enemy I just see things differently.
Sindhu I was watching CNN also. You Deanie Weanies will be happy to know they said Dean has got a big lead over all the other Dem's in the race according to a lot of polls, but most people are still stating he probably won’t beat Bush. Like that zoby poll you guys posted before. I read it and even it said Bush will probly win. I know how disappointed you guys are to hear that though. But also I think you will see how well off America will be when Bush gets re-elected. It’s looking like this will be Bush’s election again. IT”S LOOKING GOOD FOR US BUSH LOVING PEOPLES.
08-30-2003 12:11 AM ET (US)
Ann I just read you high lights. you would think me and Doug was enemies. Doug I'm not your enemy I just see things differently.
Sindhu I was watching CNN also. You Deanie Weanies will be happy to know they said Dean has got a big lead over all the other Dem's in the race according to a lot of polls, but most people are still stating he probably won’t beat Bush. Like that zoby poll you guys posted before. I read it and even it said Bush will probly win. I know how disappointed you guys are to hear that though. But also I think you will see how well off America will be when Bush gets re-elected. It’s looking like this will be Bush’s election again. IT”S LOOKING GOOD FOR US BUSH LOVING PEOPLES.
Ann Stewart 921
08-30-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
I think it is hard for us to say that Bush will win Jen. You act like he's got this in the bag sometimes. I don't think he does. I think the Dems have a really good chance. Bush may be well liked, but people are not over looking the war with Iraq or the Economy.
08-30-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
I think it is hard for us to say that Bush will win Jen. You act like he's got this in the bag sometimes. I don't think he does. I think the Dems have a really good chance. Bush may be well liked, but people are not over looking the war with Iraq or the Economy.
Lysa 922
08-30-2003 01:20 AM ET (US)
Someone in the Dean blog posted this.
Republicans behind the Gray Davis recall use the deficit as their main argument. California's deficit is currently at 8 billion. Another person posted that it was really 38 billion................which was true a short while ago but Davis and company through taxes and other means brought the deficit down 30 billion.
But the point the blogger made was classic.
If you take the current US deficit of 450 billion ( probably 600 by the time you add in Iraq and everything ) and divide by 50 states you have 9 Billion per state.
Michael and Jennifer, every time you write "Deanie Weanies" I think of high school kids on the playground. I don't think you are in that age bracket.
Bush will have a lot to think about. Many more Americans than those shown on tv land are pissed. That is not looking good for Bush, especially as many of them aren't typically voters, but you can bet they'll be voting this time. The only way Bush can win is if he Steals the election again. Wasn't there a commandment, Thou shall not steal?
Bush is a thief and a liar. Very ungodly like of him really.
Ps, I hope Becky is doing well. Health to her.
08-30-2003 01:20 AM ET (US)
Someone in the Dean blog posted this.
Republicans behind the Gray Davis recall use the deficit as their main argument. California's deficit is currently at 8 billion. Another person posted that it was really 38 billion................which was true a short while ago but Davis and company through taxes and other means brought the deficit down 30 billion.
But the point the blogger made was classic.
If you take the current US deficit of 450 billion ( probably 600 by the time you add in Iraq and everything ) and divide by 50 states you have 9 Billion per state.
Michael and Jennifer, every time you write "Deanie Weanies" I think of high school kids on the playground. I don't think you are in that age bracket.
Bush will have a lot to think about. Many more Americans than those shown on tv land are pissed. That is not looking good for Bush, especially as many of them aren't typically voters, but you can bet they'll be voting this time. The only way Bush can win is if he Steals the election again. Wasn't there a commandment, Thou shall not steal?
Bush is a thief and a liar. Very ungodly like of him really.
Ps, I hope Becky is doing well. Health to her.
Ann Stewart 923
08-30-2003 01:34 AM ET (US)
Hi Lysa Dear
Becky is doing better, but Jen said still getting around slow. That's probably why we haven't heard from her.
I hope all you know that there is 2 different Michael in here. Mike D. is friend of Jenny's. Michael Bohannon is not the same person. I just wanted to let you know Michael Bohannon didn't call you Deanie weiny. Anyways Michael Bohannon is still an undecided voter, but he seems to be highly interested in the Dem site. Steven Bohannon seems like he may vote for Bush this time. They are from the same family. Weird hun?…..2 entirely different opinions.
Thanks for that comment and update Lysa. I hope someone has a good answer for it.
Good night folks I'm signing off. As always feel free to post all night and check out the funny high lights I picked out of the entire debate on my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com or I posted it as an update on the front of the 2004 Election Debate site too at http://election2004.4t.com
Good night God Bless
08-30-2003 01:34 AM ET (US)
Hi Lysa Dear
Becky is doing better, but Jen said still getting around slow. That's probably why we haven't heard from her.
I hope all you know that there is 2 different Michael in here. Mike D. is friend of Jenny's. Michael Bohannon is not the same person. I just wanted to let you know Michael Bohannon didn't call you Deanie weiny. Anyways Michael Bohannon is still an undecided voter, but he seems to be highly interested in the Dem site. Steven Bohannon seems like he may vote for Bush this time. They are from the same family. Weird hun?…..2 entirely different opinions.
Thanks for that comment and update Lysa. I hope someone has a good answer for it.
Good night folks I'm signing off. As always feel free to post all night and check out the funny high lights I picked out of the entire debate on my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com or I posted it as an update on the front of the 2004 Election Debate site too at http://election2004.4t.com
Good night God Bless
Martin 924
08-30-2003 01:47 AM ET (US)
Bush is losing out on this 1 this time. There is no way for him 2 win again. After all the rotten stuff he's done, he has no chance. Good nite all....just putting my voice in.
Martino
08-30-2003 01:47 AM ET (US)
Bush is losing out on this 1 this time. There is no way for him 2 win again. After all the rotten stuff he's done, he has no chance. Good nite all....just putting my voice in.
Martino
Martin 925
08-30-2003 02:03 AM ET (US)
As for Bush being handsome.....he's as about as handsome as my middle finger.
08-30-2003 02:03 AM ET (US)
As for Bush being handsome.....he's as about as handsome as my middle finger.
Martin 926
08-30-2003 02:05 AM ET (US)
Ann has anybody from overseas checked into this debate and told you what they think of Bush? People overseas hate him. They think hes a war monster.
08-30-2003 02:05 AM ET (US)
Ann has anybody from overseas checked into this debate and told you what they think of Bush? People overseas hate him. They think hes a war monster.
Lysa 927
08-30-2003 04:36 AM ET (US)
Ann, you are right. I stand corrected. It was Mike D post 853. My apologies to Michael for mixing you up with Mike. It wasn't intended.
Thanks for the update on Becky. Hopefully she's enjoying her time off and resting up. Sometimes its good to take things slowly.
I agree, Martin, it would be great to hear from people overseas here.
08-30-2003 04:36 AM ET (US)
Ann, you are right. I stand corrected. It was Mike D post 853. My apologies to Michael for mixing you up with Mike. It wasn't intended.
Thanks for the update on Becky. Hopefully she's enjoying her time off and resting up. Sometimes its good to take things slowly.
I agree, Martin, it would be great to hear from people overseas here.
Ann Stewart 928
08-30-2003 01:06 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-30-2003 01:08 PM
Good morning Lysa
Yeah I know what you mean when we have so many people who have posted here at the debate under the same name of Chris's and Michael's, and even there was a little Ann who posted here who is not me, but anybody can use any user name here you want. You don't have to give out your real name on the Internet if you don't want to. I just want you to talk to us, and tell us what is important to you on the candidates and the issues.
I also would like you guys to keep us updated on any new news you find out on the Candidates. Like Michael Bohannon asked me yesterday if I knew anything about a Dean meet up that was suppose to have the Dave Matthews band play at it. See Michael is a big fan of Dave Matthews Band and he wanted to go to that meet up. Has anybody heard something like that too?….. cause I couldn’t tell him. Also by the way Michael is a voter and he is still undecided on whom to vote for.
I will check in on you guys a little bit later. I’m stepping away from my computer for a few hours. I love hearing from you guys. Keep us informed.
Ann Stewart
PS by the way I’ve been hearing on CNN that Dean is kick’in butt in the Democratic primaries. I’m very happy for you Dean Supporters. I’m sure it is going to make Jenny sick though.
08-30-2003 01:06 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-30-2003 01:08 PM
Good morning Lysa
Yeah I know what you mean when we have so many people who have posted here at the debate under the same name of Chris's and Michael's, and even there was a little Ann who posted here who is not me, but anybody can use any user name here you want. You don't have to give out your real name on the Internet if you don't want to. I just want you to talk to us, and tell us what is important to you on the candidates and the issues.
I also would like you guys to keep us updated on any new news you find out on the Candidates. Like Michael Bohannon asked me yesterday if I knew anything about a Dean meet up that was suppose to have the Dave Matthews band play at it. See Michael is a big fan of Dave Matthews Band and he wanted to go to that meet up. Has anybody heard something like that too?….. cause I couldn’t tell him. Also by the way Michael is a voter and he is still undecided on whom to vote for.
I will check in on you guys a little bit later. I’m stepping away from my computer for a few hours. I love hearing from you guys. Keep us informed.
Ann Stewart
PS by the way I’ve been hearing on CNN that Dean is kick’in butt in the Democratic primaries. I’m very happy for you Dean Supporters. I’m sure it is going to make Jenny sick though.
Ann Stewart 929
08-30-2003 01:11 PM ET (US)
Martin that crack about "As for Bush being handsome.....he's as about as handsome as my middle finger." that is very funny. I'm going to post it on my news blog.
08-30-2003 01:11 PM ET (US)
Martin that crack about "As for Bush being handsome.....he's as about as handsome as my middle finger." that is very funny. I'm going to post it on my news blog.
Charles in Montana 930
08-30-2003 03:00 PM ET (US)
I've had a really busy week and it took an hour to catch up to you people. Doug, I like the idea of ousting a bunch of congressman who vote both with there wallet and on party lines. Why not throw in a few votes for the people you are ficticously representing? I'm not sure but I think it was Lysa who refered to blinders. Interesting! I was thinking about blinders this week. I wondered how, with so much evidence to prove otherwise, people could think Bush and the neocons were good. I thought about the workhorses that wore leather blinders. Thier lot in life was to pull the plow in one direction. The blinders prevented distractions. The horse naturally has wide angle sight. This gives the animal a defensive advantage in the presence of danger. By blinding the horse he trudges straight foward not distracted by danger to the left or right. The blinded horse is now very managable. It appears Bush supporters have lost wide angle vision and trudge straight foward regardless of numerous dangers around them. Patti I see you are still hanging tough as nails. When I was younger I saw a hell of a fight between two guys who would not back down from each other. In the end one was standing, one was on the ground. They were both hurting but the guy on the ground coundn't get up. In the ultimate defiance he gave the guy standing the finger. When I read your posts, guess who I think of. On the subject of good looking. Get real. Who wants a president who goes to the beauty shop twice a week then stops by the full service gas station to get the air in his head changed? I think it should be more about subject matter. Keith your posts are so factual. Keep them rolling. I was going to bash Bush a little but I can hold off a while. Glad to be back to the debate.
08-30-2003 03:00 PM ET (US)
I've had a really busy week and it took an hour to catch up to you people. Doug, I like the idea of ousting a bunch of congressman who vote both with there wallet and on party lines. Why not throw in a few votes for the people you are ficticously representing? I'm not sure but I think it was Lysa who refered to blinders. Interesting! I was thinking about blinders this week. I wondered how, with so much evidence to prove otherwise, people could think Bush and the neocons were good. I thought about the workhorses that wore leather blinders. Thier lot in life was to pull the plow in one direction. The blinders prevented distractions. The horse naturally has wide angle sight. This gives the animal a defensive advantage in the presence of danger. By blinding the horse he trudges straight foward not distracted by danger to the left or right. The blinded horse is now very managable. It appears Bush supporters have lost wide angle vision and trudge straight foward regardless of numerous dangers around them. Patti I see you are still hanging tough as nails. When I was younger I saw a hell of a fight between two guys who would not back down from each other. In the end one was standing, one was on the ground. They were both hurting but the guy on the ground coundn't get up. In the ultimate defiance he gave the guy standing the finger. When I read your posts, guess who I think of. On the subject of good looking. Get real. Who wants a president who goes to the beauty shop twice a week then stops by the full service gas station to get the air in his head changed? I think it should be more about subject matter. Keith your posts are so factual. Keep them rolling. I was going to bash Bush a little but I can hold off a while. Glad to be back to the debate.
Derek 932
08-30-2003 05:54 PM ET (US)
I am a die-hard, John Kerry supporter, but I have several friends who are undecided. Could any Howard Dean supporters give me info on why they belive Howard Dean is best choice for America besides the fact that he has the momentum?
08-30-2003 05:54 PM ET (US)
I am a die-hard, John Kerry supporter, but I have several friends who are undecided. Could any Howard Dean supporters give me info on why they belive Howard Dean is best choice for America besides the fact that he has the momentum?
Keith Brekhus 933
08-30-2003 07:44 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-30-2003 07:46 PM
Dean has held executive office in Vermont and has a solid record of consistently balancing the state's budget. He appears to be tough-minded enough to make difficult and controversial but necessary decisions.
Dean's signing of the nation's only same sex civil unions bill was called "political suicide" at the time. The Governor received so many death threats for that, he was forced to hire a body guard to protect him from assassination. But he refused to be intimidated and he did the right thing and his state is a better state because of it.
Dean opposed the invasion of Iraq before the war and the pundits again said it was "political suicide". While Kerry was betting on the war and voted for the resolution to attack Iraq, Dean was speaking on the stump that Bush hadn't made the case for war.
Now with nearly 300 dead American soldiers and more dying everyday, Iraq spiraling into violent anarchy and chaos, and no weapons of mass destruction to be found, it is Dean and not Bush, Kerry, Gephardt or Lieberman (all who supported the war) who appears prescient.
If a Democrat takes the White House he will have to be able to stand up to the Republican Congress (if they maintain control) and he will have to have the courage to make tough decisions to balance the budget (He will inherit a 500 billion dollar deficit) and so many other issues.
So far Dean, more than any other candidate, has shown the ability to make tough decisions and govern. The pundits say he is too liberal, but they are the same pundits who said he was a minor candidate who had peaked in March (when he was at 4% nationally). They are the same pundits that said an anti-war candidate couldn't win the nomination, and the same pundits who said he wouldn't be reelected Governor after signing the civil unions bill.
The pundits continue to underestimate Howard Dean...but the American people keep sending him money, because they want bold leadership in Washington.
Joe Lieberman is running against the values of the Democratic Party, John Kerry is not sure why he is running. Howard Dean is running a fiercely independent grassroots campaign and he is PROUD to be a Democrat at a time when the party lacks self-esteem and its self-appointed leaders attempt to sabotage the one Democrat who isn't afraid to stand up for the party against Bush.
I wouldn't be surprised if they underestimate Dean right up to 11 pm on election night, when Bush is forced to concede defeat after losing Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. At that point a lot of poor working stiffs like me are going to pop open that bottle of champagne that ate up every last penny of our paychecks, because we will have taken our country back from Bush's right-wing junta. Oh and we will have earned that glass of bubbly, because we are the people who will make it happen.
08-30-2003 07:44 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-30-2003 07:46 PM
Dean has held executive office in Vermont and has a solid record of consistently balancing the state's budget. He appears to be tough-minded enough to make difficult and controversial but necessary decisions.
Dean's signing of the nation's only same sex civil unions bill was called "political suicide" at the time. The Governor received so many death threats for that, he was forced to hire a body guard to protect him from assassination. But he refused to be intimidated and he did the right thing and his state is a better state because of it.
Dean opposed the invasion of Iraq before the war and the pundits again said it was "political suicide". While Kerry was betting on the war and voted for the resolution to attack Iraq, Dean was speaking on the stump that Bush hadn't made the case for war.
Now with nearly 300 dead American soldiers and more dying everyday, Iraq spiraling into violent anarchy and chaos, and no weapons of mass destruction to be found, it is Dean and not Bush, Kerry, Gephardt or Lieberman (all who supported the war) who appears prescient.
If a Democrat takes the White House he will have to be able to stand up to the Republican Congress (if they maintain control) and he will have to have the courage to make tough decisions to balance the budget (He will inherit a 500 billion dollar deficit) and so many other issues.
So far Dean, more than any other candidate, has shown the ability to make tough decisions and govern. The pundits say he is too liberal, but they are the same pundits who said he was a minor candidate who had peaked in March (when he was at 4% nationally). They are the same pundits that said an anti-war candidate couldn't win the nomination, and the same pundits who said he wouldn't be reelected Governor after signing the civil unions bill.
The pundits continue to underestimate Howard Dean...but the American people keep sending him money, because they want bold leadership in Washington.
Joe Lieberman is running against the values of the Democratic Party, John Kerry is not sure why he is running. Howard Dean is running a fiercely independent grassroots campaign and he is PROUD to be a Democrat at a time when the party lacks self-esteem and its self-appointed leaders attempt to sabotage the one Democrat who isn't afraid to stand up for the party against Bush.
I wouldn't be surprised if they underestimate Dean right up to 11 pm on election night, when Bush is forced to concede defeat after losing Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. At that point a lot of poor working stiffs like me are going to pop open that bottle of champagne that ate up every last penny of our paychecks, because we will have taken our country back from Bush's right-wing junta. Oh and we will have earned that glass of bubbly, because we are the people who will make it happen.
Charles in Montana 934
08-30-2003 08:03 PM ET (US)
Derek I'm a Republican. I dispise the neocons. They aren't really Republicans. They are fascist. Bush and Bush family agenda doesn't represent a lot of moderate Republicans. Many Republicans have left the party to join Dean. Why? Years ago Democrats wanted to turn us into a welfare state, Republicans want everyone capable of working to work. Those who could not work would of course be taken care of. I believe every time you take from the government, you lose a little bit of freedom. So the more handouts you take, the more you depend on government. Please don't misunderstand, there are a lot of good social programs that I approve of. When you know the your chosen party has grown dangerously out of control, you better step forward and admit it. Many people are still voting party platforms from 30 and 40 years ago. It is the 21st century and people need to update some political info. A lot of the Demo canidates are Republicans of years ago. Hardcore Republicans are now Fascists. Moderates are gathering around Dean. If you want you know where Dean stands on issues, go to the DeanforAmerica website and read them. I don't agree with all Deans ideas. He is not the perfect man, but my judgement is, he is the best man. Why do I like Dean? He is not a Washington insider. He won't backup on issues to gain votes. He speaks his mind. He rolls up his sleeves and goes to work. He is a little pissed about what has happened to our country and so am I. If you think Dean currently has momentum that is wishful thinking on your part. I have been with Dean since they said he had no chance. Deans momentum had been unnoticed for months. It has built on a steady upward swing from the begining. This idea that Dean will fizzle out is wishful thinking, by other camps. Dean is now well funded, the media is now forced to admit he is the frontrunner. We call Howard Dean, People powered Howard and he truly is people powered. No one else is in this position. The average donation to Dean is between 50 and 80 dollars. That does not compare to the huge donations brought in by Washington insiders. The thing is, there are now so many of us, we can raise more money in small donations than Washington insiders. The media says Howard Dean backers are students and aging hippies. I'm neither, and know a bunch more supporters that are neither. Derek, sometimes you need to glaze over the things you read and hear and use your gut instinct to help make these calls. Your first impression is right 95% of the time.
08-30-2003 08:03 PM ET (US)
Derek I'm a Republican. I dispise the neocons. They aren't really Republicans. They are fascist. Bush and Bush family agenda doesn't represent a lot of moderate Republicans. Many Republicans have left the party to join Dean. Why? Years ago Democrats wanted to turn us into a welfare state, Republicans want everyone capable of working to work. Those who could not work would of course be taken care of. I believe every time you take from the government, you lose a little bit of freedom. So the more handouts you take, the more you depend on government. Please don't misunderstand, there are a lot of good social programs that I approve of. When you know the your chosen party has grown dangerously out of control, you better step forward and admit it. Many people are still voting party platforms from 30 and 40 years ago. It is the 21st century and people need to update some political info. A lot of the Demo canidates are Republicans of years ago. Hardcore Republicans are now Fascists. Moderates are gathering around Dean. If you want you know where Dean stands on issues, go to the DeanforAmerica website and read them. I don't agree with all Deans ideas. He is not the perfect man, but my judgement is, he is the best man. Why do I like Dean? He is not a Washington insider. He won't backup on issues to gain votes. He speaks his mind. He rolls up his sleeves and goes to work. He is a little pissed about what has happened to our country and so am I. If you think Dean currently has momentum that is wishful thinking on your part. I have been with Dean since they said he had no chance. Deans momentum had been unnoticed for months. It has built on a steady upward swing from the begining. This idea that Dean will fizzle out is wishful thinking, by other camps. Dean is now well funded, the media is now forced to admit he is the frontrunner. We call Howard Dean, People powered Howard and he truly is people powered. No one else is in this position. The average donation to Dean is between 50 and 80 dollars. That does not compare to the huge donations brought in by Washington insiders. The thing is, there are now so many of us, we can raise more money in small donations than Washington insiders. The media says Howard Dean backers are students and aging hippies. I'm neither, and know a bunch more supporters that are neither. Derek, sometimes you need to glaze over the things you read and hear and use your gut instinct to help make these calls. Your first impression is right 95% of the time.
Ann Stewart 936
08-30-2003 09:27 PM ET (US)
Good Question Derek and great answers Keith and Charles. I'm sorry I haven't answered much today, we had a bad electric storm in Nashville that made me shut down my computer.
Derek the biggest reason I adore Dean is because he went against the war when all the other Dem's went along with it.
I still think Kerry is a great Candidate. If Kerry wins the democratic primaries, I'm going to stand by him full force. If Dean wins I'm going to do the same for him.
08-30-2003 09:27 PM ET (US)
Good Question Derek and great answers Keith and Charles. I'm sorry I haven't answered much today, we had a bad electric storm in Nashville that made me shut down my computer.
Derek the biggest reason I adore Dean is because he went against the war when all the other Dem's went along with it.
I still think Kerry is a great Candidate. If Kerry wins the democratic primaries, I'm going to stand by him full force. If Dean wins I'm going to do the same for him.
Patti Ferschke 937
08-30-2003 09:30 PM ET (US)
Come on Derek,you and I are the only ones in here that know Kerry is the only guy that can and will hit the ground running from his first day in ofice,{after we dance}. You Dean fans say it's because of Dean's "outside" the bely-way gives him that stance. JK has so many friends "inside",and has worked years to establish and maintain them,on both sides of the isle! remember Clinton,it took at least two years before he got anything done,and it will be the same with Dean !He's divided the DEMS so badly,you think the votes in there will go for Dean..wrong! Do go and read the article in counter punch.org posted today,we'll see who's going to stand with GWB,and it SHOULD not be DEAN !!! even his Vermonters don't think so either ! Kery's already got the vet vote,and that's where DEAN will lose big time !
08-30-2003 09:30 PM ET (US)
Come on Derek,you and I are the only ones in here that know Kerry is the only guy that can and will hit the ground running from his first day in ofice,{after we dance}. You Dean fans say it's because of Dean's "outside" the bely-way gives him that stance. JK has so many friends "inside",and has worked years to establish and maintain them,on both sides of the isle! remember Clinton,it took at least two years before he got anything done,and it will be the same with Dean !He's divided the DEMS so badly,you think the votes in there will go for Dean..wrong! Do go and read the article in counter punch.org posted today,we'll see who's going to stand with GWB,and it SHOULD not be DEAN !!! even his Vermonters don't think so either ! Kery's already got the vet vote,and that's where DEAN will lose big time !
Patti Ferschke 938
08-30-2003 09:38 PM ET (US)
Ann, this race is not and should not be of any kind of adoration society...no matter about the war or not. WE ARE AT WAR and it's going to take the most experienced person to unleash the havoc Bush and the neo-cons have placed all citizens of the world. That "IS" only John Kerry,as we need to hit the ground running from day one,not years later...get over your infatuation with the DEAN machine...it's our ruin ! This is our life we're talking about,to vote otherwise is suicide. John Kerry for your informatio0n came home from a war that got us out of a war that was going nowhere..he will do the best he can to pull us out of this one too ! It's all about policy..you'd better believe it ! It would take Dean years to deal with it even if he has the policy written today!
08-30-2003 09:38 PM ET (US)
Ann, this race is not and should not be of any kind of adoration society...no matter about the war or not. WE ARE AT WAR and it's going to take the most experienced person to unleash the havoc Bush and the neo-cons have placed all citizens of the world. That "IS" only John Kerry,as we need to hit the ground running from day one,not years later...get over your infatuation with the DEAN machine...it's our ruin ! This is our life we're talking about,to vote otherwise is suicide. John Kerry for your informatio0n came home from a war that got us out of a war that was going nowhere..he will do the best he can to pull us out of this one too ! It's all about policy..you'd better believe it ! It would take Dean years to deal with it even if he has the policy written today!
Ann Stewart 939
08-30-2003 10:30 PM ET (US)
Patti take it easy baby. Remember I am not a registered Democrat. I can’t vote in the primaries. I’ll be voting in the main race. I’m going with Dean or Kerry, whoever wins in the primaries. I will say I do like it that Dean is a doctor. I have a lot of respect for Doctors, male or female. Just because I think Dean is handsome so what, I think Kerry is handsome too. Are you OK with that? Do you think he’s butt ugly or something? I don’t plan on trying to be a Monica Leiwneski. I’ll probably never meet Dean or Kerry. I just think intelligent men are very attractive. Both Dean and Kerry seem to be very intelligent and carry themselves well in public. I was trying to make a statement earlier when I held that contest. That some women do vote for men that they are infatuated with for some reason. Take Jenny for instance. I really do think Jenny is infatuated with George W. Bush. For that matter I think his nephew is handsome and I think that got some of the younger women’s vote for George Bush in the last election, because his handsome nephew went around the country and campaigned for him. I think the same thing about George Stephnpoulos and Bill Clinton when he was campaigning back in the early 90’s. Some Women are Weird. They don’t look at the issues. They look at the man. I know it’s not right. The only thing that should matter is the issues, but it’s not that way. I’m sorry Patti not all women are as smart on the issues and the Candidates as you are.
08-30-2003 10:30 PM ET (US)
Patti take it easy baby. Remember I am not a registered Democrat. I can’t vote in the primaries. I’ll be voting in the main race. I’m going with Dean or Kerry, whoever wins in the primaries. I will say I do like it that Dean is a doctor. I have a lot of respect for Doctors, male or female. Just because I think Dean is handsome so what, I think Kerry is handsome too. Are you OK with that? Do you think he’s butt ugly or something? I don’t plan on trying to be a Monica Leiwneski. I’ll probably never meet Dean or Kerry. I just think intelligent men are very attractive. Both Dean and Kerry seem to be very intelligent and carry themselves well in public. I was trying to make a statement earlier when I held that contest. That some women do vote for men that they are infatuated with for some reason. Take Jenny for instance. I really do think Jenny is infatuated with George W. Bush. For that matter I think his nephew is handsome and I think that got some of the younger women’s vote for George Bush in the last election, because his handsome nephew went around the country and campaigned for him. I think the same thing about George Stephnpoulos and Bill Clinton when he was campaigning back in the early 90’s. Some Women are Weird. They don’t look at the issues. They look at the man. I know it’s not right. The only thing that should matter is the issues, but it’s not that way. I’m sorry Patti not all women are as smart on the issues and the Candidates as you are.
Wayne in Missouri 940
08-30-2003 11:13 PM ET (US)
Derek,
Excellent question. I have been supporting Dean since he was a nobody candidate at 2% in the polls and when the pundits doubted he could raise money with the established candidates (boy were the pundits wrong on that one). I am thrilled to see the momentum he has gained.
My support of Dean is based on several factors.
1. First, he has balanced a state budget and we need that kind of fiscal responsibility in Washington.
2. Second, he opposed the war before it was considered politically wise to do so and he did so for all the right reasons (not pacifist reasons but common sense reasons).
3. Third, he is the only Democratic candidate in my view who isn't running scared of Bush. The cowardice that the Democratic Party displayed in the 2002 elections where they refused to criticize Bush's obviously flawed Iraq policy sickened me almost as much as Bush's arrogance and hubris. The Democrats rolled over and played dead in 2002 rather than take a principled fight into the campaign. In 2004 I want a Democratic candidate who is going to take it to the neocons and expose their flaws. Win or lose, I want a candidate who is going to take Bush head on and not imitate him. Howard Dean has done this better than any of the other candidates and both Bush and the establishment Democrats need to wake up and see that a large segment of the population wants an ALTERNATIVE to the NEOCON agenda. And the establishment candidates had, until Dean started gaining traction, been slow to distinguish themselves from Bush on foreign policy.
4. I also really like Dean's populism and his grassroots campaign. This is also what makes him the one Democrat who can battle with Bush in fundraising and it also makes him the Democrat the most likely to compete with Bush in rural states, imo.
I would back Kerry if he got the nomination, of course, but I'm definitely backing Dean with both my pocketbook and my vote in the mean time.
08-30-2003 11:13 PM ET (US)
Derek,
Excellent question. I have been supporting Dean since he was a nobody candidate at 2% in the polls and when the pundits doubted he could raise money with the established candidates (boy were the pundits wrong on that one). I am thrilled to see the momentum he has gained.
My support of Dean is based on several factors.
1. First, he has balanced a state budget and we need that kind of fiscal responsibility in Washington.
2. Second, he opposed the war before it was considered politically wise to do so and he did so for all the right reasons (not pacifist reasons but common sense reasons).
3. Third, he is the only Democratic candidate in my view who isn't running scared of Bush. The cowardice that the Democratic Party displayed in the 2002 elections where they refused to criticize Bush's obviously flawed Iraq policy sickened me almost as much as Bush's arrogance and hubris. The Democrats rolled over and played dead in 2002 rather than take a principled fight into the campaign. In 2004 I want a Democratic candidate who is going to take it to the neocons and expose their flaws. Win or lose, I want a candidate who is going to take Bush head on and not imitate him. Howard Dean has done this better than any of the other candidates and both Bush and the establishment Democrats need to wake up and see that a large segment of the population wants an ALTERNATIVE to the NEOCON agenda. And the establishment candidates had, until Dean started gaining traction, been slow to distinguish themselves from Bush on foreign policy.
4. I also really like Dean's populism and his grassroots campaign. This is also what makes him the one Democrat who can battle with Bush in fundraising and it also makes him the Democrat the most likely to compete with Bush in rural states, imo.
I would back Kerry if he got the nomination, of course, but I'm definitely backing Dean with both my pocketbook and my vote in the mean time.
Keith Brekhus 941
08-30-2003 11:37 PM ET (US)
Ann,
Aren't you from Tennessee? If so, I believe you CAN vote in the Tennessee primary, since Tennessee is an Open Primary State.
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_preside...e_primary_dates.php
Open primary states allow you to vote in a party's primary even if you are not registered with that party. You have to pick one party's primary to vote in (i,e- you can't vote in both the Democratic and Republican primary, but since Bush is uncontested most independents in open primary states will vote in the Democratic primary if they vote).
I live in an open primary state, and I was able to vote in the Democratic primary, even though I ran for office against a Democrat and a Republican on a third party ticket in the general election and I am not a registered Democrat.
The TN primary is Feb 10th. If you live in TN or another open primary state I would encourage you to support the Democratic challanger of your choice, whether it be Dean, Kerry or one of the others. No use forfeiting the right to choose Bush's challenger to others if you live in an open primary state.
08-30-2003 11:37 PM ET (US)
Ann,
Aren't you from Tennessee? If so, I believe you CAN vote in the Tennessee primary, since Tennessee is an Open Primary State.
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_preside...e_primary_dates.php
Open primary states allow you to vote in a party's primary even if you are not registered with that party. You have to pick one party's primary to vote in (i,e- you can't vote in both the Democratic and Republican primary, but since Bush is uncontested most independents in open primary states will vote in the Democratic primary if they vote).
I live in an open primary state, and I was able to vote in the Democratic primary, even though I ran for office against a Democrat and a Republican on a third party ticket in the general election and I am not a registered Democrat.
The TN primary is Feb 10th. If you live in TN or another open primary state I would encourage you to support the Democratic challanger of your choice, whether it be Dean, Kerry or one of the others. No use forfeiting the right to choose Bush's challenger to others if you live in an open primary state.
Lysa 942
08-30-2003 11:53 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 12:06 AM
Off topic to Keith and anyone else planning on attending Columbia MO September's Dean meetup.
Just in case no one is checking the Yahoo message board. I was unable to get to the library in time Friday or today, and the next available time to give the library the flyer is Tuesday. Erggh
The meetup is now Thursday at the library @ 7:00 PM Dean supporters will also be out at the Twilight festival same day, beginning as soon as Bob sets up the table after 5:00 PM. Please pass this information around.
08-30-2003 11:53 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 12:06 AM
Off topic to Keith and anyone else planning on attending Columbia MO September's Dean meetup.
Just in case no one is checking the Yahoo message board. I was unable to get to the library in time Friday or today, and the next available time to give the library the flyer is Tuesday. Erggh
The meetup is now Thursday at the library @ 7:00 PM Dean supporters will also be out at the Twilight festival same day, beginning as soon as Bob sets up the table after 5:00 PM. Please pass this information around.
Ann Stewart 943
08-31-2003 02:40 AM ET (US)
Keith
I've already checked and I was told I couldn't vote in the primaries, unless I was a registered Democrat. I will check again though. Thanks for the link.
Well folks I'm signing off for the night. I will talk to you in the morning.
Goodnight everybody
08-31-2003 02:40 AM ET (US)
Keith
I've already checked and I was told I couldn't vote in the primaries, unless I was a registered Democrat. I will check again though. Thanks for the link.
Well folks I'm signing off for the night. I will talk to you in the morning.
Goodnight everybody
Michael Bohannon 944
08-31-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
Patti, you and Democrats in general act like the world was a paradise before George Bush came along. Sure, Bush is more blatant about his disregard for human life and the international community, but wasn't Clinton the same in some regards. I mean everybody acts like Clinton did everything according to international law and respected the UN. I don't think so! He bombed a pharmaceutical company in the Sudan and it was a preemptive attack so to speak with hardly no damn evidence at all! He and NATO went against UN resolutions in bombing the hell out of Bosnia. HMM!, sounds a lot like Bush. Clinton also had the Coast Guard go into international waters and round up a bunch of Haitians and bring them back to their beloved homeland. That of course is against international law too, which gives people the right to flee from tyranny. But I guess a military government is not tyranny. The Democrats were suspiciously quiet on these issues. Furthermore, Clinton never once considered lifting sanctions against either Iraq or Cuba and enforced the no fly zones just as rigorously as the Bush administrations.
This war has illustrated the hypocrisy of many of the Democrats. They protest the war against Irag, but not our actions against the Haitians nor the Bosnians. I guess its alright to bomb Bosnians without UN approval, but not Iraqis. Clinton and Bush are hewn from the same stone, no matter how much they disagree in policy. Clinton was building an empire as much as Bush is now. The Dean folks seem to recognize this and that's why he is so popular at this point. Sure Kerry protested the Vietnam war after he came home, but even that seems spurious. He threw somebody else's medals onto the White House lawn and claimed they were his. Boy, what a trooper. I'm not claiming that Dean will be any different, but he hasn't swayed on his stance against the war, nor took some irrational middle ground to try and please everyone. Maybe he will go against the status quo and stop the imperialism.
08-31-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
Patti, you and Democrats in general act like the world was a paradise before George Bush came along. Sure, Bush is more blatant about his disregard for human life and the international community, but wasn't Clinton the same in some regards. I mean everybody acts like Clinton did everything according to international law and respected the UN. I don't think so! He bombed a pharmaceutical company in the Sudan and it was a preemptive attack so to speak with hardly no damn evidence at all! He and NATO went against UN resolutions in bombing the hell out of Bosnia. HMM!, sounds a lot like Bush. Clinton also had the Coast Guard go into international waters and round up a bunch of Haitians and bring them back to their beloved homeland. That of course is against international law too, which gives people the right to flee from tyranny. But I guess a military government is not tyranny. The Democrats were suspiciously quiet on these issues. Furthermore, Clinton never once considered lifting sanctions against either Iraq or Cuba and enforced the no fly zones just as rigorously as the Bush administrations.
This war has illustrated the hypocrisy of many of the Democrats. They protest the war against Irag, but not our actions against the Haitians nor the Bosnians. I guess its alright to bomb Bosnians without UN approval, but not Iraqis. Clinton and Bush are hewn from the same stone, no matter how much they disagree in policy. Clinton was building an empire as much as Bush is now. The Dean folks seem to recognize this and that's why he is so popular at this point. Sure Kerry protested the Vietnam war after he came home, but even that seems spurious. He threw somebody else's medals onto the White House lawn and claimed they were his. Boy, what a trooper. I'm not claiming that Dean will be any different, but he hasn't swayed on his stance against the war, nor took some irrational middle ground to try and please everyone. Maybe he will go against the status quo and stop the imperialism.
Patti Ferschke 946
08-31-2003 03:19 PM ET (US)
Here's some "hot topics" on your guy Dean...go to
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Then if you had any sense you would have listened to MEET THE PRESS this am...did you hear your man's plan for your taxes,20 times what you pay now...good luck !....WRONG for middle Americans,wrong for the growth of the economy,and he still was for the war {waffling last O
CT
]..he didn't have to give it a VOTE....huge difference !you're getting a bush all over again !
08-31-2003 03:19 PM ET (US)
Here's some "hot topics" on your guy Dean...go to
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Then if you had any sense you would have listened to MEET THE PRESS this am...did you hear your man's plan for your taxes,20 times what you pay now...good luck !....WRONG for middle Americans,wrong for the growth of the economy,and he still was for the war {waffling last O
CT
]..he didn't have to give it a VOTE....huge difference !you're getting a bush all over again !
Patti Ferschke 947
08-31-2003 03:21 PM ET (US)
LOOK ,I'm about as anti war as anyone can be,but to get to peace we need to change that past policy..it ain't your man Dean...he will lose,and who's going to listen !
08-31-2003 03:21 PM ET (US)
LOOK ,I'm about as anti war as anyone can be,but to get to peace we need to change that past policy..it ain't your man Dean...he will lose,and who's going to listen !
Charles in Montana 948
08-31-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
I've read Justins crap for a longtime. Antiwar.com is one of my favorite sites. Remember, Justins comments are his opinion. We all have one.
08-31-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
I've read Justins crap for a longtime. Antiwar.com is one of my favorite sites. Remember, Justins comments are his opinion. We all have one.
Ann Stewart 949
08-31-2003 03:48 PM ET (US)
Ok Patti
I saw the story on "THE DEAN DECEPTION
The lying S.O.B." and I will say I don't agree with it.
Michael good points.
Charles and Patti thanks for the comments.
08-31-2003 03:48 PM ET (US)
Ok Patti
I saw the story on "THE DEAN DECEPTION
The lying S.O.B." and I will say I don't agree with it.
Michael good points.
Charles and Patti thanks for the comments.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 950
08-31-2003 04:49 PM ET (US)
From the time the embro is formed it has a soul. You guys think about that when you vote.
08-31-2003 04:49 PM ET (US)
From the time the embro is formed it has a soul. You guys think about that when you vote.
Roger Dale 951
08-31-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
For the sake of argument Bush has brought alot of the soldiers home. Bush is doing the best he can for our troops. He does support our troops. Thier coming home.
08-31-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
For the sake of argument Bush has brought alot of the soldiers home. Bush is doing the best he can for our troops. He does support our troops. Thier coming home.
Wayne in Missouri 952
08-31-2003 05:03 PM ET (US)
Michael,
I pretty much agree with you. I didn't vote for Clinton and I had complaints about his foreign policy too.
I'm voting for Dean this time around. I like his stance against the Iraq war on common-sense grounds.
08-31-2003 05:03 PM ET (US)
Michael,
I pretty much agree with you. I didn't vote for Clinton and I had complaints about his foreign policy too.
I'm voting for Dean this time around. I like his stance against the Iraq war on common-sense grounds.
Wayne in Missouri 953
08-31-2003 05:21 PM ET (US)
Patti,
The only reason antiwar.com is picking on Howard Dean is because he is the most anti-war of the major contenders and because he now appears to be the Democratic frontrunner. He feels the same way about Kerry, Gephardt or any of the other Democrats running.
Notice that his goal in the article is to unite the anti-war movement behind a 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul.
The last thing we need in this election is a third party voting bloc among ideologically pure pacifists and isolationists who refuse to compromise with the pragmatically anti-Iraq war position of Dean. We don't need a repeat of the 2000 election and that's what this guy is brokering for.
Dean is getting attacked by the other Democrats for being too anti-war and he is being attacked by the far left for not being anti-war enough. Fact is, he is right where he should be..opposed to Bush's Iraq war on common-sense grounds, not on knee-jerk isolationist or pacifist grounds.
08-31-2003 05:21 PM ET (US)
Patti,
The only reason antiwar.com is picking on Howard Dean is because he is the most anti-war of the major contenders and because he now appears to be the Democratic frontrunner. He feels the same way about Kerry, Gephardt or any of the other Democrats running.
Notice that his goal in the article is to unite the anti-war movement behind a 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul.
The last thing we need in this election is a third party voting bloc among ideologically pure pacifists and isolationists who refuse to compromise with the pragmatically anti-Iraq war position of Dean. We don't need a repeat of the 2000 election and that's what this guy is brokering for.
Dean is getting attacked by the other Democrats for being too anti-war and he is being attacked by the far left for not being anti-war enough. Fact is, he is right where he should be..opposed to Bush's Iraq war on common-sense grounds, not on knee-jerk isolationist or pacifist grounds.
Keith Brekhus 954
08-31-2003 06:09 PM ET (US)
Kerry voted for the war. Hard to argue that he is the anti-war candidate, since his vote is on record.
Dean can't raise my taxes by twenty times, since I pay more than 5% of my income in taxes,making such an increase statisticlaly impossible. Whoever came up with that figure?
As for electability, John Kerry is now polling 5% nationally for the Democrats---dead even with Al Sharpton.
Latest CBS National Poll
The results of the latest national poll on the Democratic fight for the nomination:
Lieberman 14
Gephardt 11
Dean: 10
Kerry: 5
Sharpton: 5
Graham: 4
Edwards: 2
Braun: 2
Kucinich: 0
Oh and it might be time for Kerry to dump Jim Jordan---the more he goes after Dean the further Kerry drops in the polls
and yes we know he fought in Vietnam
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=634
WE KNOW, WE KNOW, YOU WERE IN 'NAM
by Franklin Foer
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: General Likeability
Grade: D
It has become clear that the Kerry campaign will now relentlessly flog its major comparative advantage: Its candidate is a Vietnam veteran with a chest-full of medals. And if you miss this point the first time, the Kerry campaign will make sure that you catch it the second and the third. He'll officially launch his campaign in front of an aircraft carrier that was used in Vietnam. When he makes his pitch, he'll use lines like this: "I won't just bring to that profound responsibility the perspective of sitting in the situation room--I'll also bring the perspective of someone who's fought on the front lines."
There are three problems with this strategy:
1. The Narcissism Problem. John Kerry invokes himself as often as the columnist Richard Cohen. It's his ubiquitous use of "I" that creates the unfortunate impression of arrogance. His incessant talk about his own biography will probably not help defuse this problem.
2. The Big Lebowksi Problem. In the Coen brothers highly underrated movie, the John Goodman character (Walter Sobchak) relates every happening in his life to his days in Vietnam, a sign of his tragi-comic mishugas. John Kerry did many heroic, courageous things for his country. Talking about them all the time might inadvertently create an aura of crazed obsession.
3. The Wesley Clark problem. From what we hear, we should know about the status of Clark's candidacy by the end of the week. If he enters, and I suspect he will, then the Kerry's 'Nam rational goes up in a flash. He's no longer the candidate with the resume best suited to defusing Bush's national security advantage. Where Kerry has a long record of voting against weapons programs, Clark has been a vocal proponent of American power. Unlike Kerry, Clarke doesn't need to reach back 30 years to find military service on his resume. We'll be hearing a lot about heroic battlefield acts that occurred within the past decade.
08-31-2003 06:09 PM ET (US)
Kerry voted for the war. Hard to argue that he is the anti-war candidate, since his vote is on record.
Dean can't raise my taxes by twenty times, since I pay more than 5% of my income in taxes,making such an increase statisticlaly impossible. Whoever came up with that figure?
As for electability, John Kerry is now polling 5% nationally for the Democrats---dead even with Al Sharpton.
Latest CBS National Poll
The results of the latest national poll on the Democratic fight for the nomination:
Lieberman 14
Gephardt 11
Dean: 10
Kerry: 5
Sharpton: 5
Graham: 4
Edwards: 2
Braun: 2
Kucinich: 0
Oh and it might be time for Kerry to dump Jim Jordan---the more he goes after Dean the further Kerry drops in the polls
and yes we know he fought in Vietnam
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=634
WE KNOW, WE KNOW, YOU WERE IN 'NAM
by Franklin Foer
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: General Likeability
Grade: D
It has become clear that the Kerry campaign will now relentlessly flog its major comparative advantage: Its candidate is a Vietnam veteran with a chest-full of medals. And if you miss this point the first time, the Kerry campaign will make sure that you catch it the second and the third. He'll officially launch his campaign in front of an aircraft carrier that was used in Vietnam. When he makes his pitch, he'll use lines like this: "I won't just bring to that profound responsibility the perspective of sitting in the situation room--I'll also bring the perspective of someone who's fought on the front lines."
There are three problems with this strategy:
1. The Narcissism Problem. John Kerry invokes himself as often as the columnist Richard Cohen. It's his ubiquitous use of "I" that creates the unfortunate impression of arrogance. His incessant talk about his own biography will probably not help defuse this problem.
2. The Big Lebowksi Problem. In the Coen brothers highly underrated movie, the John Goodman character (Walter Sobchak) relates every happening in his life to his days in Vietnam, a sign of his tragi-comic mishugas. John Kerry did many heroic, courageous things for his country. Talking about them all the time might inadvertently create an aura of crazed obsession.
3. The Wesley Clark problem. From what we hear, we should know about the status of Clark's candidacy by the end of the week. If he enters, and I suspect he will, then the Kerry's 'Nam rational goes up in a flash. He's no longer the candidate with the resume best suited to defusing Bush's national security advantage. Where Kerry has a long record of voting against weapons programs, Clark has been a vocal proponent of American power. Unlike Kerry, Clarke doesn't need to reach back 30 years to find military service on his resume. We'll be hearing a lot about heroic battlefield acts that occurred within the past decade.
Patti Ferschke 955
08-31-2003 06:13 PM ET (US)
No kidding! And who do you want sitiing across the table with il jong,mebbi,and any other dicatator that's about to blast us of the face of this planet? You want a diplomat,you don't evee want it to be GWB EVER again..well you're gonna get just that !
08-31-2003 06:13 PM ET (US)
No kidding! And who do you want sitiing across the table with il jong,mebbi,and any other dicatator that's about to blast us of the face of this planet? You want a diplomat,you don't evee want it to be GWB EVER again..well you're gonna get just that !
Keith Brekhus 956
08-31-2003 06:13 PM ET (US)
Bush supports our troops? Look closer---
“Support our Troops” should be more than a slogan, it should mean something. Personally, I am outraged that the Bush administration and his allies in Congress have exploited this slogan but given the troops nothing but lip service as they lay their lives on the line day after day. Here is a link worth checking out…
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
Then read this article from the Armed Forces, Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
More problems….
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6537277.htm
Letters published in Stars and Stripes describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/homelessvet030822.html
She collapsed in 130-degree heat. She had heart failure, went into a coma and was flown to a military hospital in Germany.
"Going down the hallway, I can hear the guy saying, 'This soldier's not going to make it,' " Turner told ABCNEWS. "And I'm trying my best to tell them, 'Don't let me die; I'm going to make this.' I was trying to move my fingers and toes to tell them, 'Don't let me die.' "
Because the Army doctors thought Turner, 41, was going to die, they gave her a medical discharge
But then Turner recovered.
When she got out of the hospital, however, she found herself out of the Army, out of a job and out of her home.
"My life was on the line in Iraq," said Turner. "I almost died. I was in a coma for two days. And I come back and I'm living on a couch? That's not right."
And that's not all.
When she asked the Army to ship her personal belongings back from the base in Germany, they told her she'd have to pay her own way back to collect them.
Ron Conley, national commander of the American Legion, says these are not isolated incidents.
"This is a problem occurring with all veterans," said Conley. "Current veterans that we're making today are facing the same problem that previous veterans are facing. One of the messages that we sent to President Bush and the members of Congress is: We appropriate money to fight a war; there's an additional cost to that war and that's the health care of the men and women that fight that war."
The anger from military families and upset soldiers is finally making the news. Here is but one example.
http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/p...08-21-03-91378.html
To show their disdain, the Vogels have hung a sign outside their business, Assured Staffing, on Main Street, stating: "Proud of our soldier! Ashamed of our president!"
Vogel just attended the funeral of a 40-year-old reservist from Aaron's unit, a Wisconsin man who was killed and whose three children are fatherless after the truck he was driving in convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
280 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 1200 have been wounded, but Bush has yet to attend a single funeral for one of the slain soldiers. Instead he has cut their imminent danger pay, their family-separation allowance, their Veterans and Health Care benefits and he has exploited their sacrifices in 120 degree heat, to enrich Dick Cheney’s Halliburton firm…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6429-2003Aug27.html
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
If you truly care about our men and women in uniform, vote Bush out in 2004!!!
08-31-2003 06:13 PM ET (US)
Bush supports our troops? Look closer---
“Support our Troops” should be more than a slogan, it should mean something. Personally, I am outraged that the Bush administration and his allies in Congress have exploited this slogan but given the troops nothing but lip service as they lay their lives on the line day after day. Here is a link worth checking out…
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html
Then read this article from the Armed Forces, Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?...MYPAPER-1954515.php
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
More problems….
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6537277.htm
Letters published in Stars and Stripes describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/homelessvet030822.html
She collapsed in 130-degree heat. She had heart failure, went into a coma and was flown to a military hospital in Germany.
"Going down the hallway, I can hear the guy saying, 'This soldier's not going to make it,' " Turner told ABCNEWS. "And I'm trying my best to tell them, 'Don't let me die; I'm going to make this.' I was trying to move my fingers and toes to tell them, 'Don't let me die.' "
Because the Army doctors thought Turner, 41, was going to die, they gave her a medical discharge
But then Turner recovered.
When she got out of the hospital, however, she found herself out of the Army, out of a job and out of her home.
"My life was on the line in Iraq," said Turner. "I almost died. I was in a coma for two days. And I come back and I'm living on a couch? That's not right."
And that's not all.
When she asked the Army to ship her personal belongings back from the base in Germany, they told her she'd have to pay her own way back to collect them.
Ron Conley, national commander of the American Legion, says these are not isolated incidents.
"This is a problem occurring with all veterans," said Conley. "Current veterans that we're making today are facing the same problem that previous veterans are facing. One of the messages that we sent to President Bush and the members of Congress is: We appropriate money to fight a war; there's an additional cost to that war and that's the health care of the men and women that fight that war."
The anger from military families and upset soldiers is finally making the news. Here is but one example.
http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/p...08-21-03-91378.html
To show their disdain, the Vogels have hung a sign outside their business, Assured Staffing, on Main Street, stating: "Proud of our soldier! Ashamed of our president!"
Vogel just attended the funeral of a 40-year-old reservist from Aaron's unit, a Wisconsin man who was killed and whose three children are fatherless after the truck he was driving in convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
280 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 1200 have been wounded, but Bush has yet to attend a single funeral for one of the slain soldiers. Instead he has cut their imminent danger pay, their family-separation allowance, their Veterans and Health Care benefits and he has exploited their sacrifices in 120 degree heat, to enrich Dick Cheney’s Halliburton firm…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6429-2003Aug27.html
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
If you truly care about our men and women in uniform, vote Bush out in 2004!!!
Keith Brekhus 957
08-31-2003 06:22 PM ET (US)
I don't buy the meme that Kerry is more electable than Dean.
I think either Kerry or Dean can win the general election if they survive the Democratic primary test.
Kerry wins by carrying the states Gore won (but he might lose New Mexico) and by notching Florida (a tough challenge but if he emphasizes senior issues and chooses a Southern candidate he can do it).
Dean wins by carrying the Gore states (including New Mexico) but instead of Florida he carries New Hampshire (Kerry could as well) and Arkansas with Clark as his running mate.
Kerry has a better shot than Dean in Florida, but is more vulnerable to losing swing states in the fly-over states(like New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin).
Kerry's speech on tuesday looms big though--he needs to hit a home run or his fundraising will suffer as polls continue to show him slipping.
08-31-2003 06:22 PM ET (US)
I don't buy the meme that Kerry is more electable than Dean.
I think either Kerry or Dean can win the general election if they survive the Democratic primary test.
Kerry wins by carrying the states Gore won (but he might lose New Mexico) and by notching Florida (a tough challenge but if he emphasizes senior issues and chooses a Southern candidate he can do it).
Dean wins by carrying the Gore states (including New Mexico) but instead of Florida he carries New Hampshire (Kerry could as well) and Arkansas with Clark as his running mate.
Kerry has a better shot than Dean in Florida, but is more vulnerable to losing swing states in the fly-over states(like New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin).
Kerry's speech on tuesday looms big though--he needs to hit a home run or his fundraising will suffer as polls continue to show him slipping.
Ann Stewart 958
08-31-2003 06:54 PM ET (US)
Wow
You guys rule. I've only been away from the computer for an hour or so. Great posting guys. It will take me sometime to get caught up with you.
08-31-2003 06:54 PM ET (US)
Wow
You guys rule. I've only been away from the computer for an hour or so. Great posting guys. It will take me sometime to get caught up with you.
Patti Ferschke 959
08-31-2003 07:06 PM ET (US)
It's the military,stupid. NO votes for dean there ! It all goes to Kerry,and so does mine
08-31-2003 07:06 PM ET (US)
It's the military,stupid. NO votes for dean there ! It all goes to Kerry,and so does mine
Keith Brekhus 960
08-31-2003 07:20 PM ET (US)
George McGovern was a decorated World War II Vet and he lost 49 states.
Bill Clinton didn't serve in the military and he won national elections twice.
It isn't so much whether or not a candidate served in the military that matters, it is how well he can connect to the average voter. It remins to be seen if Dean can connect across the spectrum well enough to win, but he has a 71% favorable to 9% unfavorable rating among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire...that a pretty good start.
Kerry, by the way, also has good numbers (68% favorable to 14% unfavorable). In this regard they are the two strongest candidate's in the field.
08-31-2003 07:20 PM ET (US)
George McGovern was a decorated World War II Vet and he lost 49 states.
Bill Clinton didn't serve in the military and he won national elections twice.
It isn't so much whether or not a candidate served in the military that matters, it is how well he can connect to the average voter. It remins to be seen if Dean can connect across the spectrum well enough to win, but he has a 71% favorable to 9% unfavorable rating among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire...that a pretty good start.
Kerry, by the way, also has good numbers (68% favorable to 14% unfavorable). In this regard they are the two strongest candidate's in the field.
sindhu kumar 961
08-31-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)
for either kerry or dean to win the nomination; each will have to win the iowa and new hampshire primaries. tuesday, kerry is going to be in south carolina for that state's primary. if he can win the south carolina primary, all likelihood is that sen. john edwards may be calling it quits as inorder for senator edwards to win the south carolina primary, he has to win there big time. the same thing happened here in louisiana in 1995-1996 when phil gramm was running for president and because he lost the lousiana primary, he quit the race for the presidency. inorder for gephardt to stay in the race, he has to win iowa.
08-31-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)
for either kerry or dean to win the nomination; each will have to win the iowa and new hampshire primaries. tuesday, kerry is going to be in south carolina for that state's primary. if he can win the south carolina primary, all likelihood is that sen. john edwards may be calling it quits as inorder for senator edwards to win the south carolina primary, he has to win there big time. the same thing happened here in louisiana in 1995-1996 when phil gramm was running for president and because he lost the lousiana primary, he quit the race for the presidency. inorder for gephardt to stay in the race, he has to win iowa.
Keith Brekhus 962
08-31-2003 07:52 PM ET (US)
I don't think Kerry needs to win Iowa, but he does need New Hampshire. Dean probably needs both and then he is very tough to stop.
Gephardt needs Iowa as well since it is his backyard so to speak.
Lieberman needs to do well in South Carolina, Oklahoma etc since he has no chance in either Iowa or New Hampshire it would seem.
08-31-2003 07:52 PM ET (US)
I don't think Kerry needs to win Iowa, but he does need New Hampshire. Dean probably needs both and then he is very tough to stop.
Gephardt needs Iowa as well since it is his backyard so to speak.
Lieberman needs to do well in South Carolina, Oklahoma etc since he has no chance in either Iowa or New Hampshire it would seem.
sindhu kumar 963
08-31-2003 08:09 PM ET (US)
from yesterday's capital gang show, i get the feeling that joe liberman is going the paul tsongas route for the presidential nomination.
08-31-2003 08:09 PM ET (US)
from yesterday's capital gang show, i get the feeling that joe liberman is going the paul tsongas route for the presidential nomination.
Keith Brekhus 964
08-31-2003 10:06 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 10:11 PM
Lieberman's strategy? This was from daily kos a few weeks back. I don't necessarily agree word for word, but it lays out his possible path to the nomination.
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003325.html#003325
District of Columbia: 1.13
Lieberman doesn't even pretend to compete here.
Iowa: 1.19
Lieberman's camp has been playing the expectations game in Iowa, floating the occassional rumor that their man will bypass the state altogether. Historically, candidates who have fared REALLY poorly in Iowa have never gone anywhere, so it's a curious strategy.
Especially considering this: the state is Gephardt's to lose. Everyone assumes a Gephardt victory is inevitable, so the focus is on the battle for second place, which will be waged by Dean and Kerry. That means that the candidate who comes in fourth will also be able to claim victory. Given the size of the field, and given Lieberman's high name ID, there's no reason why Lieberman should ignore this opportunity. A fourth place would be well in reach, and would provide a small boost to his candidacy.
And the alternative -- a distant fifth or sixth could be fatal. So for the purposes of this scenario, Lieberman pulls in a fourth-place finish, giving him a small but real momentum boost heading into:
New Hampshire: 1.27
The main stage will feature a battle between Dean and Kerry. Whoever comes in second will likely be out of the race. Whoever comes in third, however, will become the de facto "moderate" candidate.
Again, given the size of the field, the third place candidate will not need a large number of votes to edge out his competitors. And given his high name ID, Lieberman has a good shot at taking the number three slot, giving him a great deal of momentum heading into:
South Carolina, Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma: 2.2
Dean/Kerry (whoever is the survivor at this point) will be conserving energy and resources this week, leaving the "moderates" to sort themselves out. The trick this day is to win as many states as possible. You win more than your opponent, you survive, the rest perish.
Delaware will go to Dean/Kerry. Missouri will go to Gephardt. Lieberman's task will be to win SC, AZ, and OK. He wins those, he's in the clear. Edwards, Graham, and Gephardt are all toast.
Michigan, Washington (caucus): 2.7
Lieberman is now in for a rough patch. Michigan and Washington are not friendly territory. He takes a pass, looking forward to February 10.
Maine: 2.8
Lieberman cedes this state, looking ahead to:
Virginia, Tennessee: 2.10
Given that these are southern states, Lieberman will be under intense pressure to win both of them, lest he look "weak" in the press expectations game. And he wouldn't want to give Dean/Kerry any additional momentum heading into the critical Super Tuesday primary.
Wisconsin: 2.17
Lieberman takes a pass.
Idaho: 2.24 and Utah: 2.27
Given the critical Super Tuesday primary just a week away, Lieberman must win these states. Anything else and he'll be hounded by a press wondering why he couldn't win these "conservative" states. And, by losing these states, he would give his opponent crucial momentum heading into the most important day in this election:
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, North Dakota, Texas, Washington (primary): 3.2
The states favor Lieberman's more liberal opponent. As such, he needs to limit the damage and live to fight in the southern Super Tuesday a week later. If he can pull even or make a respectable showing, then Lieberman can wrap things up, victorious, a week later.
Of the 14 states this day, only five can be deemed reasonably friendly to a Lieberman candidacy -- CT, GA, OH, ND and TX. That won't be enough to stem the tide. He will have to "surprise", and "shock the establishment" by winning states no one thought he could win. He needs to win NY (very possible, actually). California would seal the deal in his favor.
With a big "liberal" state under his belt, Lieberman can claim victory and cruise through the rest of the primary season the party's eventual nominee.
Bottom line: Despite utterances to the contrary, Lieberman has to compete in IA and NH. But the bar for him in those states is pretty low -- a 4th place finish in IA and a third place finish in NH and he's riding pretty heading into more friendly territory.
The primary calendar doesn't favor Lieberman, but he'll have an easier time winnowing out the "moderate" candidates. Since the "moderate" side of the field is crowded with at least four, possibly six candidates, he'll need far fewer votes to win his states. And that's where his high name ID can come into play. For Dean and Kerry, it's a 50+1 proposition. For Lieberman, 15-20 percent may be enough
Dean's strategy
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003180.html#003180
Kerry's route
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003025.html
Gephardt's path
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003138.html#003138
08-31-2003 10:06 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 10:11 PM
Lieberman's strategy? This was from daily kos a few weeks back. I don't necessarily agree word for word, but it lays out his possible path to the nomination.
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003325.html#003325
District of Columbia: 1.13
Lieberman doesn't even pretend to compete here.
Iowa: 1.19
Lieberman's camp has been playing the expectations game in Iowa, floating the occassional rumor that their man will bypass the state altogether. Historically, candidates who have fared REALLY poorly in Iowa have never gone anywhere, so it's a curious strategy.
Especially considering this: the state is Gephardt's to lose. Everyone assumes a Gephardt victory is inevitable, so the focus is on the battle for second place, which will be waged by Dean and Kerry. That means that the candidate who comes in fourth will also be able to claim victory. Given the size of the field, and given Lieberman's high name ID, there's no reason why Lieberman should ignore this opportunity. A fourth place would be well in reach, and would provide a small boost to his candidacy.
And the alternative -- a distant fifth or sixth could be fatal. So for the purposes of this scenario, Lieberman pulls in a fourth-place finish, giving him a small but real momentum boost heading into:
New Hampshire: 1.27
The main stage will feature a battle between Dean and Kerry. Whoever comes in second will likely be out of the race. Whoever comes in third, however, will become the de facto "moderate" candidate.
Again, given the size of the field, the third place candidate will not need a large number of votes to edge out his competitors. And given his high name ID, Lieberman has a good shot at taking the number three slot, giving him a great deal of momentum heading into:
South Carolina, Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma: 2.2
Dean/Kerry (whoever is the survivor at this point) will be conserving energy and resources this week, leaving the "moderates" to sort themselves out. The trick this day is to win as many states as possible. You win more than your opponent, you survive, the rest perish.
Delaware will go to Dean/Kerry. Missouri will go to Gephardt. Lieberman's task will be to win SC, AZ, and OK. He wins those, he's in the clear. Edwards, Graham, and Gephardt are all toast.
Michigan, Washington (caucus): 2.7
Lieberman is now in for a rough patch. Michigan and Washington are not friendly territory. He takes a pass, looking forward to February 10.
Maine: 2.8
Lieberman cedes this state, looking ahead to:
Virginia, Tennessee: 2.10
Given that these are southern states, Lieberman will be under intense pressure to win both of them, lest he look "weak" in the press expectations game. And he wouldn't want to give Dean/Kerry any additional momentum heading into the critical Super Tuesday primary.
Wisconsin: 2.17
Lieberman takes a pass.
Idaho: 2.24 and Utah: 2.27
Given the critical Super Tuesday primary just a week away, Lieberman must win these states. Anything else and he'll be hounded by a press wondering why he couldn't win these "conservative" states. And, by losing these states, he would give his opponent crucial momentum heading into the most important day in this election:
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, North Dakota, Texas, Washington (primary): 3.2
The states favor Lieberman's more liberal opponent. As such, he needs to limit the damage and live to fight in the southern Super Tuesday a week later. If he can pull even or make a respectable showing, then Lieberman can wrap things up, victorious, a week later.
Of the 14 states this day, only five can be deemed reasonably friendly to a Lieberman candidacy -- CT, GA, OH, ND and TX. That won't be enough to stem the tide. He will have to "surprise", and "shock the establishment" by winning states no one thought he could win. He needs to win NY (very possible, actually). California would seal the deal in his favor.
With a big "liberal" state under his belt, Lieberman can claim victory and cruise through the rest of the primary season the party's eventual nominee.
Bottom line: Despite utterances to the contrary, Lieberman has to compete in IA and NH. But the bar for him in those states is pretty low -- a 4th place finish in IA and a third place finish in NH and he's riding pretty heading into more friendly territory.
The primary calendar doesn't favor Lieberman, but he'll have an easier time winnowing out the "moderate" candidates. Since the "moderate" side of the field is crowded with at least four, possibly six candidates, he'll need far fewer votes to win his states. And that's where his high name ID can come into play. For Dean and Kerry, it's a 50+1 proposition. For Lieberman, 15-20 percent may be enough
Dean's strategy
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003180.html#003180
Kerry's route
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003025.html
Gephardt's path
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003138.html#003138
sindhu kumar 965
08-31-2003 10:17 PM ET (US)
lousiana primary is too is sometime in february. it is anybody's guess who wins this state's primary. right now, we have the gubernatorial primary on october 4th as the election is on november 5th. right now, none of the big guns are coming out to show support for the party candidates. but i have a feeling that presient bush will come here to help bobby jindal coast to victory.
08-31-2003 10:17 PM ET (US)
lousiana primary is too is sometime in february. it is anybody's guess who wins this state's primary. right now, we have the gubernatorial primary on october 4th as the election is on november 5th. right now, none of the big guns are coming out to show support for the party candidates. but i have a feeling that presient bush will come here to help bobby jindal coast to victory.
Keith Brekhus 966
08-31-2003 10:39 PM ET (US)
I take it Louisiana will be a run-off between Jindal and Kathleen Blanco (D)? I think if Jindal loses that doesn't bode well for Bush's coattails because it will look a lot like when he wasn't able to get Terrell to beat Landreau for the senate seat.
08-31-2003 10:39 PM ET (US)
I take it Louisiana will be a run-off between Jindal and Kathleen Blanco (D)? I think if Jindal loses that doesn't bode well for Bush's coattails because it will look a lot like when he wasn't able to get Terrell to beat Landreau for the senate seat.
sindhu kumar 967
08-31-2003 11:07 PM ET (US)
mary landrieu only won because she got the support of the parish presidents that surround new orleans, and yes a few of them were republicans. if jindal can win, it would be great because he is a young,dynamic 32 year old indian american who is a republican and who has worked with HHS secretary tommy thompson and president bush. lt.gov blanco will have the support of the DNC bigwigs, CDA, and YDA as they all are planning to come here during november 5 to november 7. right now, i am going to vote for jindal, but should he falter and another republican comes to challenge lt. gov blanco, i will vote for blanco.
08-31-2003 11:07 PM ET (US)
mary landrieu only won because she got the support of the parish presidents that surround new orleans, and yes a few of them were republicans. if jindal can win, it would be great because he is a young,dynamic 32 year old indian american who is a republican and who has worked with HHS secretary tommy thompson and president bush. lt.gov blanco will have the support of the DNC bigwigs, CDA, and YDA as they all are planning to come here during november 5 to november 7. right now, i am going to vote for jindal, but should he falter and another republican comes to challenge lt. gov blanco, i will vote for blanco.
sindhu kumar 968
08-31-2003 11:13 PM ET (US)
right now the race is a tight one between jindal and lt.gove blanco.
08-31-2003 11:13 PM ET (US)
right now the race is a tight one between jindal and lt.gove blanco.
Ann Stewart 969
08-31-2003 11:29 PM ET (US)
Did you guys hear on CNN news just now, that Arnold S. is not even going to show up for a main debate in Cal? It's just like Michael B. said before, he's trying to win this election on a novelty run. He is completely avoiding the issues.
08-31-2003 11:29 PM ET (US)
Did you guys hear on CNN news just now, that Arnold S. is not even going to show up for a main debate in Cal? It's just like Michael B. said before, he's trying to win this election on a novelty run. He is completely avoiding the issues.
sindhu kumar 970
08-31-2003 11:43 PM ET (US)
i heard that ann. it is pretty stupid of arnold s.to say that he is running for governor if he cant debate the issues with bustamante, mcclintock and davis. he got into the race to be the next governor of california which is not an easy job to do.
08-31-2003 11:43 PM ET (US)
i heard that ann. it is pretty stupid of arnold s.to say that he is running for governor if he cant debate the issues with bustamante, mcclintock and davis. he got into the race to be the next governor of california which is not an easy job to do.
Ann Stewart 971
08-31-2003 11:46 PM ET (US)
Yeah if he doesn't start seriously talk'in the issues no one is vote for him. He's gonna be a joke candidate.
08-31-2003 11:46 PM ET (US)
Yeah if he doesn't start seriously talk'in the issues no one is vote for him. He's gonna be a joke candidate.
sindhu kumar 972
08-31-2003 11:58 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 11:58 PM
if he does not talk about the issues during debate time, especially with proposition 34, everbody will say hasta la vista arnold instead of arnold saying hasta la vista to gray davis, cruz bustamante, and tom mcclintock and peter ubberoth.
08-31-2003 11:58 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 08-31-2003 11:58 PM
if he does not talk about the issues during debate time, especially with proposition 34, everbody will say hasta la vista arnold instead of arnold saying hasta la vista to gray davis, cruz bustamante, and tom mcclintock and peter ubberoth.
Ann Stewart 973
08-31-2003 11:59 PM ET (US)
Well goodnight all...I'm signing off. Thankyou all so much for the great comments. You rocked today at this debate. I learned alot from reading your comments.
08-31-2003 11:59 PM ET (US)
Well goodnight all...I'm signing off. Thankyou all so much for the great comments. You rocked today at this debate. I learned alot from reading your comments.
sindhu kumar 974
09-01-2003 12:06 AM ET (US)
goodnight everyone from the princes and princess of maine, washington state and all the other 48 states,and kings and queens of america, this is sindhu signing off for today. hope that everybody has a great labor day holiday!!d
09-01-2003 12:06 AM ET (US)
goodnight everyone from the princes and princess of maine, washington state and all the other 48 states,and kings and queens of america, this is sindhu signing off for today. hope that everybody has a great labor day holiday!!d
Michael Bohannon 975
09-01-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
I've been reading all your fears of a third party candidate ruining the election for the Democrats, which of course was the same complaint from the Republicans when Ross Perot ran for President. It makes me think that our current two-party system is flawed. I'm more apt to believe that a power-sharing system, like many countries in Europe, is more representative and democratic. Doesn't the proponents of the Green Party or the Reform Party deserve representation if enough of the population supports their platforms? This would even give minorities more of a chance for real political power. No longer would a party just absorb an issue and throw it aside when it is effectively dealt with; they would have to seriously consider the ramifications of ignoring a popular movement built upon a specific interest. Besides, isn't that true democracy? I can ask people about religion, politics, and the meaning of life and get a million different perspectives, and yet a two-party system is supposed to represent the whole population and the various concerns of the American people. Some people may worry that a radical party may come into power, but I believe the power-sharing system is a balance of competing issues, thus it is a better system of checks and balances than what we have. I don't think we should be scorning third parties, but figuring out how to even the playing field in our present system to allow for a more diverse political spectrum- even if you disagree with their ideology. I applaud Nader and Perot, even though I don't particularly agree with their platforms (in fact I don't even know if Perot had a platform). What the popularity of the Green and Reform party represent is a general dissatisfaction of the two-party system. It is difficult to dismantle entrenched power, but I think it would be worth the effort for the American people.
09-01-2003 12:53 AM ET (US)
I've been reading all your fears of a third party candidate ruining the election for the Democrats, which of course was the same complaint from the Republicans when Ross Perot ran for President. It makes me think that our current two-party system is flawed. I'm more apt to believe that a power-sharing system, like many countries in Europe, is more representative and democratic. Doesn't the proponents of the Green Party or the Reform Party deserve representation if enough of the population supports their platforms? This would even give minorities more of a chance for real political power. No longer would a party just absorb an issue and throw it aside when it is effectively dealt with; they would have to seriously consider the ramifications of ignoring a popular movement built upon a specific interest. Besides, isn't that true democracy? I can ask people about religion, politics, and the meaning of life and get a million different perspectives, and yet a two-party system is supposed to represent the whole population and the various concerns of the American people. Some people may worry that a radical party may come into power, but I believe the power-sharing system is a balance of competing issues, thus it is a better system of checks and balances than what we have. I don't think we should be scorning third parties, but figuring out how to even the playing field in our present system to allow for a more diverse political spectrum- even if you disagree with their ideology. I applaud Nader and Perot, even though I don't particularly agree with their platforms (in fact I don't even know if Perot had a platform). What the popularity of the Green and Reform party represent is a general dissatisfaction of the two-party system. It is difficult to dismantle entrenched power, but I think it would be worth the effort for the American people.
Keith Brekhus 976
09-01-2003 01:09 AM ET (US)
I agree with Micahel B that proportional representation (or something similar) in the legislature would be a good idea. If Congress has 435 seats and a third party candidate gets 10% of the vote, shouldn't they get close to 10% representation, like say 43 or 44 seats?
As for executive postitions like Governor and President, I think instant runoff voting is preferable to our current plurality/winner take all system.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
09-01-2003 01:09 AM ET (US)
I agree with Micahel B that proportional representation (or something similar) in the legislature would be a good idea. If Congress has 435 seats and a third party candidate gets 10% of the vote, shouldn't they get close to 10% representation, like say 43 or 44 seats?
As for executive postitions like Governor and President, I think instant runoff voting is preferable to our current plurality/winner take all system.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
Michael Bohannon 977
09-01-2003 01:38 AM ET (US)
Keith it's an honor to have you agree with me. You are much more educated about this stuff than I am.
09-01-2003 01:38 AM ET (US)
Keith it's an honor to have you agree with me. You are much more educated about this stuff than I am.
Ann Stewart 978
09-01-2003 12:44 PM ET (US)
OK folks let’s get serious, I’ve been watching the news this morning, Bush gave a great speech. It has been stated Bush is in the driver’s set in this election race right now. Bush talked about how he will stimulate job growth and how by putting money back in the people’s pocket this will help the economy. I will have to admit that sounded good to me. The only thing I am thinking is will what he said about putting money in people’s pocket really help the economy or help job growth. To me it seems like a quick fix to a long-term problem. Giving tax refunds are not going to find people jobs. If you watch American Mornings on CNN this weeks it’s theme is “Where the Jobs Are.” I’m one of the lucky ones, I have job security now matter what, but it has also been reported that the biggest buzz on the web right now is coming from people who are looking for jobs. That brakes my heart, and to me it doesn’t matter how great Bush sounded today in his speech or the wonderful promises he made about stimulating the economy and the job market, he still hasn’t given me any proof he can fix this problem. I remember people like Moe Islam stated they would vote for Bush if he proved he would fix the economy. That’s what Bush is claiming he is doing by putting money back in the hands of the people. How many of you think that is true?
09-01-2003 12:44 PM ET (US)
OK folks let’s get serious, I’ve been watching the news this morning, Bush gave a great speech. It has been stated Bush is in the driver’s set in this election race right now. Bush talked about how he will stimulate job growth and how by putting money back in the people’s pocket this will help the economy. I will have to admit that sounded good to me. The only thing I am thinking is will what he said about putting money in people’s pocket really help the economy or help job growth. To me it seems like a quick fix to a long-term problem. Giving tax refunds are not going to find people jobs. If you watch American Mornings on CNN this weeks it’s theme is “Where the Jobs Are.” I’m one of the lucky ones, I have job security now matter what, but it has also been reported that the biggest buzz on the web right now is coming from people who are looking for jobs. That brakes my heart, and to me it doesn’t matter how great Bush sounded today in his speech or the wonderful promises he made about stimulating the economy and the job market, he still hasn’t given me any proof he can fix this problem. I remember people like Moe Islam stated they would vote for Bush if he proved he would fix the economy. That’s what Bush is claiming he is doing by putting money back in the hands of the people. How many of you think that is true?
Ann Stewart 979
09-01-2003 12:46 PM ET (US)
Who saw Bush's speech on CNN today? Today's a holiday. So I got the day off from work. Below is a report on some of the things he said.
09-01-2003 12:46 PM ET (US)
Who saw Bush's speech on CNN today? Today's a holiday. So I got the day off from work. Below is a report on some of the things he said.
Charles in Montana 980
09-01-2003 01:12 PM ET (US)
If you think Bush is in control of the election, think again. He has control of the corporate media that tells you he does. Fact is Bush has big time problems. Our local newspaper today had headlines on Bushes poor economic policies and high unemployment. Grandpa, a Republican since he stepped off the battlecruiser Baltimore in 1946 stopped in this morning. He said That Damned Bush has got us in a hell of a mess. He talked about Iraq and the high unemployment. I naturally signed him up with the Dean campaign. What corporate media talks about is not what the people talk about. There are now a lot of people more intune to reality than ever before. Bush slides down the hill more with each American death, each new bomb blast, each new unemployed person. Don't let some pundit blow smohe up your ass. Stand firm, hold your ground. We got the neocons by the short end. Check this out. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/blown_it.html
09-01-2003 01:12 PM ET (US)
If you think Bush is in control of the election, think again. He has control of the corporate media that tells you he does. Fact is Bush has big time problems. Our local newspaper today had headlines on Bushes poor economic policies and high unemployment. Grandpa, a Republican since he stepped off the battlecruiser Baltimore in 1946 stopped in this morning. He said That Damned Bush has got us in a hell of a mess. He talked about Iraq and the high unemployment. I naturally signed him up with the Dean campaign. What corporate media talks about is not what the people talk about. There are now a lot of people more intune to reality than ever before. Bush slides down the hill more with each American death, each new bomb blast, each new unemployed person. Don't let some pundit blow smohe up your ass. Stand firm, hold your ground. We got the neocons by the short end. Check this out. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/blown_it.html
Charles in Montana 981
09-01-2003 01:21 PM ET (US)
That link isn't working for me. Go Antiwar.com click Neocon admit they have blown it.
09-01-2003 01:21 PM ET (US)
That link isn't working for me. Go Antiwar.com click Neocon admit they have blown it.
Ann Stewart 983
09-01-2003 01:57 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-01-2003 01:58 PM
Hi Charles it's good to hear from you and I haven't seen Doug in a while. I miss Doug.I want you to come back Doug. I miss your ex-stream views on things.
09-01-2003 01:57 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-01-2003 01:58 PM
Hi Charles it's good to hear from you and I haven't seen Doug in a while. I miss Doug.I want you to come back Doug. I miss your ex-stream views on things.
Charles in Montana 984
09-01-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
Great news, just read a poll, GWB won by a huge margin. Poll was Biggist Lair in recent presidental history.
09-01-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
Great news, just read a poll, GWB won by a huge margin. Poll was Biggist Lair in recent presidental history.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 987
09-01-2003 05:22 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann and all
Bush has got a plan to improve our economy and help bring jobs to people who want to work. People have to want to work though. You just can't expect a good job to just fall in your lap. I had one man tell me there was no good jobs out there, he said jobs like McDonalds, Burger king or min wage jobs came easy, but the really good jobs you have to try hard to get. All of the reason is people don't want to work. They just want to live off the government. Bush is going to get jobs for those who really want a job. Alot of people who are on welfare don't really want to work. I'll be back with more informtion on this subject.
As for the war with Iraq it was total unavoidable. President Bush gave Saddam every opprtinity to stop the war. If Iraq would have turned over the WMD we wouldn't have gone to war with them. Bush was protecting us from future disasters like 9/11.Iraq harbers terroist still today. Bush is not a man of war. He is a man who wants peace and the peace of mind people have when you live in a safe country. That's what Bush is doing making America safe. Now you guys can clobber on me all you want. I know I'm the one voting for the right person.
09-01-2003 05:22 PM ET (US)
Hi Ann and all
Bush has got a plan to improve our economy and help bring jobs to people who want to work. People have to want to work though. You just can't expect a good job to just fall in your lap. I had one man tell me there was no good jobs out there, he said jobs like McDonalds, Burger king or min wage jobs came easy, but the really good jobs you have to try hard to get. All of the reason is people don't want to work. They just want to live off the government. Bush is going to get jobs for those who really want a job. Alot of people who are on welfare don't really want to work. I'll be back with more informtion on this subject.
As for the war with Iraq it was total unavoidable. President Bush gave Saddam every opprtinity to stop the war. If Iraq would have turned over the WMD we wouldn't have gone to war with them. Bush was protecting us from future disasters like 9/11.Iraq harbers terroist still today. Bush is not a man of war. He is a man who wants peace and the peace of mind people have when you live in a safe country. That's what Bush is doing making America safe. Now you guys can clobber on me all you want. I know I'm the one voting for the right person.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 988
09-01-2003 05:33 PM ET (US)
President Bush's growth job act:
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On this Labor Day weekend, Americans pay tribute to the spirit of hard work and enterprise that has always made this nation strong. Every day, our workers go to factories and offices and farms and produce the world's finest goods and services. Their creativity and energy are the greatest advantage of the American economy.
Worker productivity accelerated last year at the fastest rate in more than a half century. This higher productivity means our workers receive higher wages, our nation's exports get a competitive boost in world markets and our economic recovery gains momentum at a crucial time.
The Jobs and Growth Act I signed in May ensures that workers enjoy more of the benefits of their work through more take-home pay. Tax relief was based on the conviction that workers are entitled to keep more of their hard-earned wages. That belief, after all, is why America celebrates Labor Day and not tax day.
For America's families, tax relief has come at just the right time. For a family of four with a household income of $40,000, tax relief passed over the last two-and-a-half years means they get to keep nearly $2,000 more of their own money.
Millions of families this past month received checks for up to $400 per child because we increased the child tax credit. This tax relief, more than $13 billion worth, means that America's workers can save, invest and make purchases they have been putting off. Many moms and dads are using their extra income to take care of back-to-school expenses.
As consumer spending rises, manufacturers are seeing more new orders for their goods. Low interest rates mean businesses have better balance sheets, and families have saved billions of dollars by refinancing their homes. These are the signs of a reviving economy.
Now we must build on this progress and make sure that the economy creates enough new jobs for American workers. Next week I will travel to Ohio, Missouri and Indiana to talk about my agenda for job creation across America.
As part of this agenda, our nation needs a comprehensive energy plan, so that our businesses and homes can rely on a steady and affordable supply of energy. The recent blackout in the Northeast shows how important reliable energy is to the American economy and demonstrates the need to take action on good energy policy. So when members of Congress return from the summer recess, I will again ask them to pass a sound energy bill as soon as possible.
America needs legal reform, because junk lawsuits can destroy a business and they're making health care coverage less affordable for employers and workers. And Congress must restrain government spending so that we can bring the deficit down by half within the next five years.
We must negotiate trade agreements with other nations. My administration will be vigilant in making sure our agreements are followed by all our trading partners. With free trade and a level playing field, American workers can successfully compete with any workers in the world.
This long weekend is a well-deserved reward for the millions of men and women who make this economy go. I wish all Americans a happy and restful Labor Day.
Thank you for listening.
END
09-01-2003 05:33 PM ET (US)
President Bush's growth job act:
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On this Labor Day weekend, Americans pay tribute to the spirit of hard work and enterprise that has always made this nation strong. Every day, our workers go to factories and offices and farms and produce the world's finest goods and services. Their creativity and energy are the greatest advantage of the American economy.
Worker productivity accelerated last year at the fastest rate in more than a half century. This higher productivity means our workers receive higher wages, our nation's exports get a competitive boost in world markets and our economic recovery gains momentum at a crucial time.
The Jobs and Growth Act I signed in May ensures that workers enjoy more of the benefits of their work through more take-home pay. Tax relief was based on the conviction that workers are entitled to keep more of their hard-earned wages. That belief, after all, is why America celebrates Labor Day and not tax day.
For America's families, tax relief has come at just the right time. For a family of four with a household income of $40,000, tax relief passed over the last two-and-a-half years means they get to keep nearly $2,000 more of their own money.
Millions of families this past month received checks for up to $400 per child because we increased the child tax credit. This tax relief, more than $13 billion worth, means that America's workers can save, invest and make purchases they have been putting off. Many moms and dads are using their extra income to take care of back-to-school expenses.
As consumer spending rises, manufacturers are seeing more new orders for their goods. Low interest rates mean businesses have better balance sheets, and families have saved billions of dollars by refinancing their homes. These are the signs of a reviving economy.
Now we must build on this progress and make sure that the economy creates enough new jobs for American workers. Next week I will travel to Ohio, Missouri and Indiana to talk about my agenda for job creation across America.
As part of this agenda, our nation needs a comprehensive energy plan, so that our businesses and homes can rely on a steady and affordable supply of energy. The recent blackout in the Northeast shows how important reliable energy is to the American economy and demonstrates the need to take action on good energy policy. So when members of Congress return from the summer recess, I will again ask them to pass a sound energy bill as soon as possible.
America needs legal reform, because junk lawsuits can destroy a business and they're making health care coverage less affordable for employers and workers. And Congress must restrain government spending so that we can bring the deficit down by half within the next five years.
We must negotiate trade agreements with other nations. My administration will be vigilant in making sure our agreements are followed by all our trading partners. With free trade and a level playing field, American workers can successfully compete with any workers in the world.
This long weekend is a well-deserved reward for the millions of men and women who make this economy go. I wish all Americans a happy and restful Labor Day.
Thank you for listening.
END
Charles in Montana 989
09-01-2003 05:55 PM ET (US)
CNN poll, How would you rate President Bushes efforts to fight unemployment? Good 4% 62 votes Fair 3% 46 votes Poor 93% 1502 votes.
09-01-2003 05:55 PM ET (US)
CNN poll, How would you rate President Bushes efforts to fight unemployment? Good 4% 62 votes Fair 3% 46 votes Poor 93% 1502 votes.
Wayne in Missouri 990
09-01-2003 07:18 PM ET (US)
Did Bush mention his plan to do away with time and a half overtime pay for 8 million Americans including emergency medical technicians, nurses, paralegals and health technicians?
Vote for Bush if you believe that emergency medical technicians aren't important enough for overtime pay. I'm voting for the good Doctor who feels differently.
Howard Dean's statement on Bush's proposed cuts to overtime pay:
"Once again, President Bush is siding with big business at the expense of working families. The Administration’s proposal to deny overtime pay to millions of American workers is offensive. As President, I would reverse it.
A new proposal nearing final approval by the Department of Labor would [affect] an estimated 8 million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. These changes to Fair Labor Standards Act regulations would affect emergency medical technicians, paralegals, licensed practical nurses, draftsmen, surveyors, journalists, cooks, dental hygienists and health technicians, among many others.
This is only the latest in a series of anti-worker policies put forward by this Administration. They dismantled the ergonomics rule, fought an increase in the minimum wage, supported legislation to erode the 40 hour workweek and now they want to cut overtime pay."
09-01-2003 07:18 PM ET (US)
Did Bush mention his plan to do away with time and a half overtime pay for 8 million Americans including emergency medical technicians, nurses, paralegals and health technicians?
Vote for Bush if you believe that emergency medical technicians aren't important enough for overtime pay. I'm voting for the good Doctor who feels differently.
Howard Dean's statement on Bush's proposed cuts to overtime pay:
"Once again, President Bush is siding with big business at the expense of working families. The Administration’s proposal to deny overtime pay to millions of American workers is offensive. As President, I would reverse it.
A new proposal nearing final approval by the Department of Labor would [affect] an estimated 8 million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. These changes to Fair Labor Standards Act regulations would affect emergency medical technicians, paralegals, licensed practical nurses, draftsmen, surveyors, journalists, cooks, dental hygienists and health technicians, among many others.
This is only the latest in a series of anti-worker policies put forward by this Administration. They dismantled the ergonomics rule, fought an increase in the minimum wage, supported legislation to erode the 40 hour workweek and now they want to cut overtime pay."
Wayne in Missouri 991
09-01-2003 07:30 PM ET (US)
More on the Bush administration's cuts to overtime pay:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=267&row=1
http://www.enki3d.com/paper/july_issue_2_2...s/overtime_cuts.htm
09-01-2003 07:30 PM ET (US)
More on the Bush administration's cuts to overtime pay:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=267&row=1
http://www.enki3d.com/paper/july_issue_2_2...s/overtime_cuts.htm
Lysa 992
09-01-2003 08:16 PM ET (US)
Thank you Wayne for those posts.
Jennifer,
Bush reminds me of the character Squealer in Orwell's Animal Farm. If you've read it, great. if not give it a whirl, it's short. There's a character called Buster that constantly tells himself and others to "work harder". I'm not saying you are like Buster, but Bush, well, his speeches are all talk, no real action that works.
As the crow kept saying "Sugar candy mountain"
Ps, Buster went to the glue factory, but he thought he was going to a doctor and then to place of rest and good times for all of his hard work.
09-01-2003 08:16 PM ET (US)
Thank you Wayne for those posts.
Jennifer,
Bush reminds me of the character Squealer in Orwell's Animal Farm. If you've read it, great. if not give it a whirl, it's short. There's a character called Buster that constantly tells himself and others to "work harder". I'm not saying you are like Buster, but Bush, well, his speeches are all talk, no real action that works.
As the crow kept saying "Sugar candy mountain"
Ps, Buster went to the glue factory, but he thought he was going to a doctor and then to place of rest and good times for all of his hard work.
sindhu kumar 993
09-01-2003 08:18 PM ET (US)
hey wayne: thanks for the links. after hearing what the liberman (tom nides), gephardt (steve elmendorf) and , dean (steve mcmahon) campaign managers were saying about the president's proposals, afl-cio chairman sweeney was disgusted by the adminstration's stands on many things, particular about labor losing many millions of jobs . gephardt's campaign and liberman's campaign both said that their guys would come on cnn's crossfire.
09-01-2003 08:18 PM ET (US)
hey wayne: thanks for the links. after hearing what the liberman (tom nides), gephardt (steve elmendorf) and , dean (steve mcmahon) campaign managers were saying about the president's proposals, afl-cio chairman sweeney was disgusted by the adminstration's stands on many things, particular about labor losing many millions of jobs . gephardt's campaign and liberman's campaign both said that their guys would come on cnn's crossfire.
Lysa 994
09-01-2003 10:07 PM ET (US)
Here's the transcript link
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/01/se.02.html
09-01-2003 10:07 PM ET (US)
Here's the transcript link
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/01/se.02.html
sindhu kumar 995
09-01-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)
hbo to have political show for fall season; cast of characters are real life politicians; could be influencing next year's election. this information was given by daryn kagan when interviewing the national editor of the new york times.
09-01-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)
hbo to have political show for fall season; cast of characters are real life politicians; could be influencing next year's election. this information was given by daryn kagan when interviewing the national editor of the new york times.
sindhu kumar 996
09-01-2003 11:05 PM ET (US)
K STREET is the name of the show that hbo is premiering on sunday, september 14. visit www.hbo.com for details.
09-01-2003 11:05 PM ET (US)
K STREET is the name of the show that hbo is premiering on sunday, september 14. visit www.hbo.com for details.
sindhu kumar 997
09-01-2003 11:26 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-01-2003 11:28 PM
http://www.hbo.com
09-01-2003 11:26 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-01-2003 11:28 PM
http://www.hbo.com
Keith Brekhus 998
09-01-2003 11:43 PM ET (US)
Happy Labor day all you working stiffs. Oh and Mr. Bush... actions speak louder than words...and you haven't delivered, so quit talking and start working to get America working again.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/ns08272003.cfm
U.S. Workers Struggle in Worst Job Slump Since Great Depression
August 27—Jobless and underemployed workers are suffering the worst job slump since the Great Depression, according to Labor Market Left Behind, an Economic Policy Institute report released August 27. With a net 3.2 million private-sector jobs lost in the United States since President George W. Bush took office, the current recovery has been the worst for job growth on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began tracking unemployment in 1939, the report finds.
"This Labor Day finds more working Americans just treading water, trying to keep their heads above water and waiting for the life raft they've been told is on the way," says EPI President Larry Mishel. "The administration's promised jobs and growth has not arrived and doesn't seem to be anywhere on the horizon."
09-01-2003 11:43 PM ET (US)
Happy Labor day all you working stiffs. Oh and Mr. Bush... actions speak louder than words...and you haven't delivered, so quit talking and start working to get America working again.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/ns08272003.cfm
U.S. Workers Struggle in Worst Job Slump Since Great Depression
August 27—Jobless and underemployed workers are suffering the worst job slump since the Great Depression, according to Labor Market Left Behind, an Economic Policy Institute report released August 27. With a net 3.2 million private-sector jobs lost in the United States since President George W. Bush took office, the current recovery has been the worst for job growth on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began tracking unemployment in 1939, the report finds.
"This Labor Day finds more working Americans just treading water, trying to keep their heads above water and waiting for the life raft they've been told is on the way," says EPI President Larry Mishel. "The administration's promised jobs and growth has not arrived and doesn't seem to be anywhere on the horizon."
Ann Stewart 999
09-02-2003 12:30 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 12:31 AM
Dear Ladies
I have started working on the ladies vote page at http://president2004.4t.com There is still time for the rest of you ladies to tell me who you are voting for and why.
For you folks who voted for Favorite actor. I will be working on that next.
Thanks for coming in and giving all the great comments.
Happy labor day to you too Keith.
09-02-2003 12:30 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 12:31 AM
Dear Ladies
I have started working on the ladies vote page at http://president2004.4t.com There is still time for the rest of you ladies to tell me who you are voting for and why.
For you folks who voted for Favorite actor. I will be working on that next.
Thanks for coming in and giving all the great comments.
Happy labor day to you too Keith.
Lysa 1000
09-02-2003 10:12 AM ET (US)
From the Dean blog:
Begin quote~I saw parts of that speeech on CSPAN, too, and was wondering how ANY union could cheer for W.A. Later I got an interesting forwarded email from the DFW dean group. Apparently, none of the union members were allowed to attend. They were segregated in a "free speech area" a great distance from the speech. The entire audience was contractors, posing as rank and file. The rank and file were outside protesting--far from the cameras.
What cheaters we have running this country.~end quote
Posted by Kathy from West Texas at September 2, 2003 08:22 AM
09-02-2003 10:12 AM ET (US)
From the Dean blog:
Begin quote~I saw parts of that speeech on CSPAN, too, and was wondering how ANY union could cheer for W.A. Later I got an interesting forwarded email from the DFW dean group. Apparently, none of the union members were allowed to attend. They were segregated in a "free speech area" a great distance from the speech. The entire audience was contractors, posing as rank and file. The rank and file were outside protesting--far from the cameras.
What cheaters we have running this country.~end quote
Posted by Kathy from West Texas at September 2, 2003 08:22 AM
Keith Brekhus 1001
09-02-2003 10:24 AM ET (US)
Kerry speech preview? I'll reserve further comment until after his speech, but my initial reaction is he just doesn't get it. Kicking off your campaign by highlighting support for Bush's war?
From today's political wire:
"Kerry signaled he will take a more aggressive tack against Dean, suggesting the Vermonter's anti-war stance was ineffective."
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/national/kerr09022003.htm
Southern comfort: Kerry looks for boost in S.C. stop
by Andrew Miga
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Desperate for a jolt of momentum to unseat high-flying Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, Sen. John F. Kerry formally launches his White House bid today with a Southern twist.
``It's obvious we gotta get going,'' said Kerry aboard his campaign jet last night en route to South Carolina.
Kerry signaled he will take a more aggressive tack against Dean, suggesting the Vermonter's anti-war stance was ineffective.
``Saying `I told you so' is not a policy,'' said Kerry.
Kerry (D-Mass.), who will announce his candidacy in Charleston, S.C., has yet to find his campaign stride as the traditional Labor Day campaign kickoff unfolds.
The lack of a clear, compelling message has hampered the Bay State senator's efforts to broaden his national appeal, according to analysts.
``I'm not sure Kerry is really comfortable in his own skin yet,'' said John Weaver, an architect of Sen. John McCain's (R- Ariz.) dramatic 2000 primary surge. ``I often wonder myself, just what his message his.''
Kerry must also overcome perceptions, particularly in the South, that he is the latest in a line of Massachusetts liberals that includes failed 1988 Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
``On TV, the boy tends to get stiff,'' said Neal Thigpen, chairman of the political science department at South Carolina's Francis Marion University. ```He doesn't come across as haughty, but he has that patrician bearing.''
cw-3 Now, as the pace of the contest intensifies with four upcoming debates, a blizzard of TV commercials and more media coverage, Kerry is seeking to project himself as a combat-tested potential commander-in-chief with a solid plan for jump-starting the nation's slumping economy.
Flanked by his old Navy crewmates, Kerry will showcase his Vietnam combat record when he appears in front of the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in South Carolina today to trumpet his run for the presidency.
The patriotic flourish is meant to send a signal to voters that Kerry, the only combat veteran in the race, has the strongest national security credentials among the nine Democrats.
``National security is a threshold issue in this campaign if you want to beat George W. Bush,'' said Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane.
But Weaver warned it can be a fine line for candidates who stress their military backgrounds.
``The campaign would be well served to be careful how they talk about it,'' said Weaver. ```Sen. McCain was very uncomfortable and would not talk about his personal experiences. He wisely left that to others. Voters want you to talk about the future, not about what you did in the war.''
Kerry aides, well aware that their kickoff event will face comparisons with the huge crowds Dean drew last week on the campaign trail, have mounted a major effort to bring in busloads of supporters from across South Carolina for the Yorktown event.
``Dean really upset the apple cart. He took off the gloves and went after Bush when the other Democrats wouldn't,'' said Thigpen. ```Kerry has run a much more sedate campaign.''
Kerry's two-day announcement tour will also include stops in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two leadoff contests in the race for the White House.
09-02-2003 10:24 AM ET (US)
Kerry speech preview? I'll reserve further comment until after his speech, but my initial reaction is he just doesn't get it. Kicking off your campaign by highlighting support for Bush's war?
From today's political wire:
"Kerry signaled he will take a more aggressive tack against Dean, suggesting the Vermonter's anti-war stance was ineffective."
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/national/kerr09022003.htm
Southern comfort: Kerry looks for boost in S.C. stop
by Andrew Miga
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Desperate for a jolt of momentum to unseat high-flying Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, Sen. John F. Kerry formally launches his White House bid today with a Southern twist.
``It's obvious we gotta get going,'' said Kerry aboard his campaign jet last night en route to South Carolina.
Kerry signaled he will take a more aggressive tack against Dean, suggesting the Vermonter's anti-war stance was ineffective.
``Saying `I told you so' is not a policy,'' said Kerry.
Kerry (D-Mass.), who will announce his candidacy in Charleston, S.C., has yet to find his campaign stride as the traditional Labor Day campaign kickoff unfolds.
The lack of a clear, compelling message has hampered the Bay State senator's efforts to broaden his national appeal, according to analysts.
``I'm not sure Kerry is really comfortable in his own skin yet,'' said John Weaver, an architect of Sen. John McCain's (R- Ariz.) dramatic 2000 primary surge. ``I often wonder myself, just what his message his.''
Kerry must also overcome perceptions, particularly in the South, that he is the latest in a line of Massachusetts liberals that includes failed 1988 Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
``On TV, the boy tends to get stiff,'' said Neal Thigpen, chairman of the political science department at South Carolina's Francis Marion University. ```He doesn't come across as haughty, but he has that patrician bearing.''
cw-3 Now, as the pace of the contest intensifies with four upcoming debates, a blizzard of TV commercials and more media coverage, Kerry is seeking to project himself as a combat-tested potential commander-in-chief with a solid plan for jump-starting the nation's slumping economy.
Flanked by his old Navy crewmates, Kerry will showcase his Vietnam combat record when he appears in front of the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in South Carolina today to trumpet his run for the presidency.
The patriotic flourish is meant to send a signal to voters that Kerry, the only combat veteran in the race, has the strongest national security credentials among the nine Democrats.
``National security is a threshold issue in this campaign if you want to beat George W. Bush,'' said Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane.
But Weaver warned it can be a fine line for candidates who stress their military backgrounds.
``The campaign would be well served to be careful how they talk about it,'' said Weaver. ```Sen. McCain was very uncomfortable and would not talk about his personal experiences. He wisely left that to others. Voters want you to talk about the future, not about what you did in the war.''
Kerry aides, well aware that their kickoff event will face comparisons with the huge crowds Dean drew last week on the campaign trail, have mounted a major effort to bring in busloads of supporters from across South Carolina for the Yorktown event.
``Dean really upset the apple cart. He took off the gloves and went after Bush when the other Democrats wouldn't,'' said Thigpen. ```Kerry has run a much more sedate campaign.''
Kerry's two-day announcement tour will also include stops in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two leadoff contests in the race for the White House.
Keith Brekhus 1002
09-02-2003 10:56 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 10:57 AM
The Bush-lite Senate dynamic duo
Here is my paraphrase of Kerry and Lieberman:
We support the war, and tax cuts but but but but but why are Democrats voting for that Howard guy, we are the real alternative to Bush even though we don't really disagree with his policies much....but we wanna be President......why oh why are Democrtas and Independents abandoning us for that angry Vermont Governor guy???? Don't they understand we can't have four more years of Bush? We just need four more years of his wars and his tax cuts, but Bush has to go.
Here are their actual comments---
John Kerry:
"I don't know whether we were lied to. I don't know whether [the Bush administration] had the most colossal intelligence failure in history. I don't know if the policies of the White House drove them to exaggerate. The bottom line is that we voted on the basis of the information that has been given to us, that has since then proven to be incorrect," Kerry said.
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Lieberman said he supported the war to oust Hussein whether or not the Iraqi dictator had such weapons.
"I reached the conclusion about the evil and the threat that Saddam represented to his people, to the region - most particularly to the United States of America. We're safer with him gone," Lieberman said.
Kerry and Lieberman said Dean does not have their experience in foreign affairs.
"Howard Dean has zero experience in international affairs," Kerry said. "George Bush has proven that the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training in this new security world."
Both Senate Democrats also said they favored repealing some of Bush's tax cuts but not all of them, as Dean has proposed.
"I want to protect the middle-class tax cut," Kerry said.
Lieberman agreed. Dean's "call that all of the Bush tax cuts be repealed would raise taxes on the middle class. That would be a terrible thing to do when the middle class is already so stressed today."
09-02-2003 10:56 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 10:57 AM
The Bush-lite Senate dynamic duo
Here is my paraphrase of Kerry and Lieberman:
We support the war, and tax cuts but but but but but why are Democrats voting for that Howard guy, we are the real alternative to Bush even though we don't really disagree with his policies much....but we wanna be President......why oh why are Democrtas and Independents abandoning us for that angry Vermont Governor guy???? Don't they understand we can't have four more years of Bush? We just need four more years of his wars and his tax cuts, but Bush has to go.
Here are their actual comments---
John Kerry:
"I don't know whether we were lied to. I don't know whether [the Bush administration] had the most colossal intelligence failure in history. I don't know if the policies of the White House drove them to exaggerate. The bottom line is that we voted on the basis of the information that has been given to us, that has since then proven to be incorrect," Kerry said.
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Lieberman said he supported the war to oust Hussein whether or not the Iraqi dictator had such weapons.
"I reached the conclusion about the evil and the threat that Saddam represented to his people, to the region - most particularly to the United States of America. We're safer with him gone," Lieberman said.
Kerry and Lieberman said Dean does not have their experience in foreign affairs.
"Howard Dean has zero experience in international affairs," Kerry said. "George Bush has proven that the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training in this new security world."
Both Senate Democrats also said they favored repealing some of Bush's tax cuts but not all of them, as Dean has proposed.
"I want to protect the middle-class tax cut," Kerry said.
Lieberman agreed. Dean's "call that all of the Bush tax cuts be repealed would raise taxes on the middle class. That would be a terrible thing to do when the middle class is already so stressed today."
Keith Brekhus 1003
09-02-2003 11:06 AM ET (US)
Kerry's announcement:
I didn't get to see it, but here is the initial report. This is good press for Kerry and it looks like it was a strong speech. He should score at least a temporary bump in the polls....
Kerry Officially Announces 2004 Candidacy
7 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. - John Kerry, maintaining that "George Bush's vision does not live up to the America" the decorated war hero once defended, officially declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday.
Using the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown as a backdrop, the Vietnam War veteran presented himself as the alternative to the Republican leader — and the Democrat with the credentials to emerge from the crowded field of nine aspirants and seize the party's nomination.
"In challenging times we need leadership that knows how to make America safer, that knows how to put America back to work," Kerry told the crowd. "The president has misled America and he has made our path more difficult as a result."
The four-term senator made his formal announcement after months of campaign-style appearances and debates with fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls.
"I reject George Bush's radical new vision of a government that comforts the comfortable at the expense of ordinary Americans," Kerry said. "George Bush's vision does not live up to the America I enlisted in the Navy to defend."
John Forbes Kerry has the initials of a one-time Democratic president — JFK — and a comparable pedigree — Ivy League education, commander of a small Navy craft during wartime and Massachusetts senator. Perceived as the front-runner early on in this campaign, that notion evaporated in the heat of rival Howard Dean's summer surge.
While the bulk of his speech was aimed at Bush, Kerry also took aim at his Democratic foes.
"Some in my party want to get rid of all tax cuts — including those for working families," he said. "That's wrong. We need to be on the side of America's middle class and I've proposed a tax cut for them because it's the right way to strengthen our economy."
Dean has used an aggressive anti-Washington theme to gain momentum, coupled with his staunch opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq (news - web sites). The former Vermont governor, who has called for repealing all of Bush's tax cuts, vaulted to a 21-point lead over Kerry in New Hampshire.
"Today, with confidence in the courage of our people to change what is wrong and do what is right, I come here to say why I'm a candidate for president of the United States," Kerry said.
Kerry was joined by crew members of a Navy gunboat he commanded in Vietnam, where he won a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Introducing Kerry was former Sen. Max Cleland (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam combat. It is all part of Kerry's core argument that his military experience gives him unique credibility among the Democratic contenders to confront Bush on national security issues.
"I am running so we can keep America's promise — to reward the hard work of middle class Americans and pull down the barriers that stand in their way and in the way of those struggling to join them," Kerry said.
The Massachusetts Democrat also appeared on several nationally broadcast morning news shows, telling NBC's "Today" he believes "our foreign policy is arrogant and we are losing influence and respect in the world."
Some in the Kerry camp argue that he should begin challenging Dean directly to blunt his momentum, while others see that as a sign of panic and argue for patience. Kerry dismissed the polls showing him slipping.
"We always knew there were going to be two or three candidates in the race," said Kerry, arguing that his campaign is geared for the long haul. While others have scored early, Kerry said he's cranking up his campaign at a time when voters are beginning to pay attention.
"That's why I'm announcing my campaign now and that's why the polls don't mean anything today," he said Monday. "America is only just beginning to listen."
While Kerry has sought to focus attention on his war-hero background, some have urged him to broaden his appeal. With a distinctively martial theme for his announcement, there was little evidence he was taking that step.
"Americans have always had the extraordinary courage to do what's right for the country," said Kerry. "He (Bush) has turned it into a game for the privileged."
The choices Kerry faces with a campaign that's faltered early are hardly new.
Former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) relocated his campaign to Nashville, Tenn., and pared back his staff when his campaign stumbled early in the 2000 presidential race.
After South Carolina, where Democrats vote during the third week of the nominating season, Kerry was headed to Iowa where precinct caucuses take place Jan. 19. On the second day of his announcement swing, Kerry was heading to New Hampshire, which has tentatively set its primary for Jan. 27, before heading home to Boston and a hometown rally.
___
NAME: John Forbes Kerry.
AGE-BIRTH DATE: 59; Dec. 11, 1943.
EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1966; law degree, Boston College, 1976.
EXPERIENCE: Navy officer, awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat "V," three Purple Hearts for Vietnam War service, 1966-70; spokesman, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 1971; Middlesex County, Mass., prosecutor, 1976-78; lawyer in private practice, 1979-1982; Massachusetts lieutenant governor, 1983-85; U.S. Senate, 1985-present.
FAMILY: Wife, Teresa Heinz; two children, three stepchildren.
QUOTE: "In challenging times we need leadership that knows how to make America safer."
09-02-2003 11:06 AM ET (US)
Kerry's announcement:
I didn't get to see it, but here is the initial report. This is good press for Kerry and it looks like it was a strong speech. He should score at least a temporary bump in the polls....
Kerry Officially Announces 2004 Candidacy
7 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. - John Kerry, maintaining that "George Bush's vision does not live up to the America" the decorated war hero once defended, officially declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday.
Using the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown as a backdrop, the Vietnam War veteran presented himself as the alternative to the Republican leader — and the Democrat with the credentials to emerge from the crowded field of nine aspirants and seize the party's nomination.
"In challenging times we need leadership that knows how to make America safer, that knows how to put America back to work," Kerry told the crowd. "The president has misled America and he has made our path more difficult as a result."
The four-term senator made his formal announcement after months of campaign-style appearances and debates with fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls.
"I reject George Bush's radical new vision of a government that comforts the comfortable at the expense of ordinary Americans," Kerry said. "George Bush's vision does not live up to the America I enlisted in the Navy to defend."
John Forbes Kerry has the initials of a one-time Democratic president — JFK — and a comparable pedigree — Ivy League education, commander of a small Navy craft during wartime and Massachusetts senator. Perceived as the front-runner early on in this campaign, that notion evaporated in the heat of rival Howard Dean's summer surge.
While the bulk of his speech was aimed at Bush, Kerry also took aim at his Democratic foes.
"Some in my party want to get rid of all tax cuts — including those for working families," he said. "That's wrong. We need to be on the side of America's middle class and I've proposed a tax cut for them because it's the right way to strengthen our economy."
Dean has used an aggressive anti-Washington theme to gain momentum, coupled with his staunch opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq (news - web sites). The former Vermont governor, who has called for repealing all of Bush's tax cuts, vaulted to a 21-point lead over Kerry in New Hampshire.
"Today, with confidence in the courage of our people to change what is wrong and do what is right, I come here to say why I'm a candidate for president of the United States," Kerry said.
Kerry was joined by crew members of a Navy gunboat he commanded in Vietnam, where he won a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Introducing Kerry was former Sen. Max Cleland (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam combat. It is all part of Kerry's core argument that his military experience gives him unique credibility among the Democratic contenders to confront Bush on national security issues.
"I am running so we can keep America's promise — to reward the hard work of middle class Americans and pull down the barriers that stand in their way and in the way of those struggling to join them," Kerry said.
The Massachusetts Democrat also appeared on several nationally broadcast morning news shows, telling NBC's "Today" he believes "our foreign policy is arrogant and we are losing influence and respect in the world."
Some in the Kerry camp argue that he should begin challenging Dean directly to blunt his momentum, while others see that as a sign of panic and argue for patience. Kerry dismissed the polls showing him slipping.
"We always knew there were going to be two or three candidates in the race," said Kerry, arguing that his campaign is geared for the long haul. While others have scored early, Kerry said he's cranking up his campaign at a time when voters are beginning to pay attention.
"That's why I'm announcing my campaign now and that's why the polls don't mean anything today," he said Monday. "America is only just beginning to listen."
While Kerry has sought to focus attention on his war-hero background, some have urged him to broaden his appeal. With a distinctively martial theme for his announcement, there was little evidence he was taking that step.
"Americans have always had the extraordinary courage to do what's right for the country," said Kerry. "He (Bush) has turned it into a game for the privileged."
The choices Kerry faces with a campaign that's faltered early are hardly new.
Former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) relocated his campaign to Nashville, Tenn., and pared back his staff when his campaign stumbled early in the 2000 presidential race.
After South Carolina, where Democrats vote during the third week of the nominating season, Kerry was headed to Iowa where precinct caucuses take place Jan. 19. On the second day of his announcement swing, Kerry was heading to New Hampshire, which has tentatively set its primary for Jan. 27, before heading home to Boston and a hometown rally.
___
NAME: John Forbes Kerry.
AGE-BIRTH DATE: 59; Dec. 11, 1943.
EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1966; law degree, Boston College, 1976.
EXPERIENCE: Navy officer, awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat "V," three Purple Hearts for Vietnam War service, 1966-70; spokesman, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 1971; Middlesex County, Mass., prosecutor, 1976-78; lawyer in private practice, 1979-1982; Massachusetts lieutenant governor, 1983-85; U.S. Senate, 1985-present.
FAMILY: Wife, Teresa Heinz; two children, three stepchildren.
QUOTE: "In challenging times we need leadership that knows how to make America safer."
Keith Brekhus 1004
09-02-2003 11:14 AM ET (US)
Bush and the economy (comments courtesy of Paul Krugman)
"Gosh, if you let me run a 500 billion dollar deficit, I could create a whole lot of jobs. That’s roughly equal to the wages of 10 million average workers.
So the fact that we’ve managed to go from a 200 billion surplus to a 500 billion deficit, while losing three million jobs, is actually a pretty poor verdict on the policy."
09-02-2003 11:14 AM ET (US)
Bush and the economy (comments courtesy of Paul Krugman)
"Gosh, if you let me run a 500 billion dollar deficit, I could create a whole lot of jobs. That’s roughly equal to the wages of 10 million average workers.
So the fact that we’ve managed to go from a 200 billion surplus to a 500 billion deficit, while losing three million jobs, is actually a pretty poor verdict on the policy."
Rockeem 1005
09-02-2003 01:43 PM ET (US)
BUSH IS A PIECE OF SHIT. THAT EVIL UGLY BASARTED WITH A SHIT EATING GRIN ON HIS FACE. HE'S SATAN!!! HE'S TRASH. FUCK HIM!!! HE'S A MURDERING SOB. WE GOT TO END THIS EVIL BASARTERS RAIN OF TERROR. HE KILLED ALL THOSES IRAQ PEOPLE JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. HE'LL KILL MORE TO GET OIL. HE'S THE DEVIL. DO I NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL HIM. HIS SHIT SINKS BAD. HIS SHIT SINKS ALL OVER THE WORLD. HE'S SHITTING ON EVERBODY.
09-02-2003 01:43 PM ET (US)
BUSH IS A PIECE OF SHIT. THAT EVIL UGLY BASARTED WITH A SHIT EATING GRIN ON HIS FACE. HE'S SATAN!!! HE'S TRASH. FUCK HIM!!! HE'S A MURDERING SOB. WE GOT TO END THIS EVIL BASARTERS RAIN OF TERROR. HE KILLED ALL THOSES IRAQ PEOPLE JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. HE'LL KILL MORE TO GET OIL. HE'S THE DEVIL. DO I NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL HIM. HIS SHIT SINKS BAD. HIS SHIT SINKS ALL OVER THE WORLD. HE'S SHITTING ON EVERBODY.
Joy 1006
09-02-2003 01:50 PM ET (US)
You tell them Rock. I totally agree with you. I may not word it that bad, but I totally agree.
09-02-2003 01:50 PM ET (US)
You tell them Rock. I totally agree with you. I may not word it that bad, but I totally agree.
doug in indiana 1007
09-02-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
"... To Dare Mighty Things ..."
by Michael Cudahy
Over the last 15 years this country has witnessed the emergence of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. During this time traditional Republicans have been deeply concerned by the serious deterioration of respect for established party principles by GOP leaders. A great party once firmly rooted in the thoughts and policies of visionary presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower has lost touch with its history.
My political career started with Barry Goldwater at the age of 12, progressed through Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Pete McCloskey, Gerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, Elliot Richardson, Bill Weld and my work as the National Communications Director for the Republican Coalition for Choice.
In addition to this work there have been many other candidates and campaigns waged in an awful lot of places that I remember only for their bad food and uncomfortable motels.
I knew Lee Atwater and watched the development of "wedge politics" flourish from Lee through Ron Kaufman, Charlie Black, Rich Bond, Mary Matalin, and Karl Rove -- with the considerable media help of Roger Ailes and Stuart Stevens.
For those not familiar with the theory of "wedge politics," its basic concept is to drive wedges between different political interest groups -- using fear and intimidation as its primary tools. This process drives many people away from the voting process, while motivating the targeted groups with negative tactics and fear.
It is easy to scare an electorate who remembers a better -- easier -- time, and then blame the current state of national affairs on: Democrats, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, Muslims, women, gays -- take your pick.
The end result is that candidates employing these tactics often win elections, but find themselves in an impossible position to govern as a result of the ill will generated in the electoral process.
One need only reflect on the reprehensible and personal attacks employed by the George W. Bush campaign in the 2000 South Carolina primary against Senator John McCain to get a sense of how "wedge politics" can be effectively and viciously employed
I respected the fact that Lee admitted before his death that "wedge politics" was one of the most damaging tactics ever developed and apologized for the effects it could have on the American political process.
In a Life magazine article written shortly before his death from cancer in 1990, Atwater said that, "Long before I was struck with cancer, I felt something stirring in American society," he said. "It was a sense among the people of the country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- that something was missing from their lives, something crucial. I was trying to position the Republican Party to take advantage of it. But I wasn't exactly sure what 'it' was. My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood."
As we have all witnessed, Republican media strategists have been very effective at scaring the living daylights out of the citizens of this country, and driving down overall turnout. It is a process which, if not stopped soon, may very well become impossible to reverse.
And then -- we might find ourselves well down the road to being a Banana Republic governed by strutting, angry ideologues -- interested more in maintaining their political power than in enacting thoughtful bipartisan policy.
In a famous anecdote often told about President Eisenhower, he was asked prior to his first run for President whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
His answer was, "I am an American."
This country is hungry to put an end to the partisan warfare that has consumed this nation for the last 15 years -- at least.
That hunger, and a deep discontent with the status quo keeps reasserting itself. It raised its head in '96 with the hope that Colin Powell might run. It reemerged with the McCain insurgency, and I believe that it will finally succeed with the candidacy of Howard Dean.
This is not a question of party registration. It is a matter of right and wrong. It is a question of thoughtful policy development that addresses the needs and problems that are facing the majority of people in this country.
I have campaigned all over this country and I have enormous confidence in the basic common sense of the American people. I believe if you speak to them rationally they will listen. I am convinced that one of the reasons that the Dean campaign is gaining such traction is because unlike everyone else they have thrown the rule book away and are beginning to intelligently address the problems that are threatening the nation.
I also believe that they understand that they represent a potential home for millions of disenfranchised traditional Republicans who -- like myself -- are no longer welcome in their own Party.
Governor Dean projects a complete unwillingness to be afraid, and that is the key to taking these people out. From what I am hearing from friends inside the Republican Party, they are deeply concerned by the Dean campaign because they do not know how to deal with it.
I guess I would say to people who have been terrified by President Bush and his administration, "do not be afraid of all Republicans, because there are millions of Republicans who are wonderful caring people. Citizens who embrace the traditions and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower......reach out to them.........and create a radical center where all of us can work together -- even when we disagree."
Please do not tar us all with the same brush. Like all Americans, we love our country, its values and the principles that have made it great. Equally important, we are committed to the vision of the founders of our party who believed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln that, "This country with its institutions belongs to the people who inhabit it."
You should also know that those of us who dare to suggest to Republicans and Independents that there is a better way -- have been threatened and harassed.
Recently I was challenged by a family member as to what my deceased father, a lifelong Republican, would think about my working for a Democratic candidate for president. My answer was that I did not know what he would think either, but then I was not sure what he would think about the world that we live in.
What would he think about a world where intelligent, hard working people can not get a job because they are over the age of 45 -- because it costs corporations too much money to employ them?
What would he think about a world where health insurance and health care costs my family of four $17,000 a year?
What would he think about a government led by a Republican president that is prepared to deficit spend to the tune of $500 billion a year or spend $2.5 trillion over a five year period on a war in a country where we do not belong, while 51,000,000 working people go without health insurance?
This country finds itself in a position where "failure is simply not an option." Like the people who are worried by the policies of the current administration, I too am concerned as to what would happen were Bush/Cheney or more accurately Cheney/Bush and Karl Rove got their way for another four years. It is of grave concern to my wife and it is the reason she has encouraged me to return to the business -- because she believes there are tools and relationships I can bring to the fight that can help Howard Dean become the next president of the United States.
But that success will come much easier if there are welcoming hands reaching out to us.
There is a quotation from Sun Tzu's Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Well I believe we have the advantage of knowing them and ourselves, and they are clueless as to what is going on in Burlington and across the country.
I resolutely agree with President Theodore Roosevelt when he said, "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
It is my hope that we can organize this effort with the sentiments expressed in the final paragraph of Lincoln's first Inaugural address:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
09-02-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
"... To Dare Mighty Things ..."
by Michael Cudahy
Over the last 15 years this country has witnessed the emergence of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. During this time traditional Republicans have been deeply concerned by the serious deterioration of respect for established party principles by GOP leaders. A great party once firmly rooted in the thoughts and policies of visionary presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower has lost touch with its history.
My political career started with Barry Goldwater at the age of 12, progressed through Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Pete McCloskey, Gerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, Elliot Richardson, Bill Weld and my work as the National Communications Director for the Republican Coalition for Choice.
In addition to this work there have been many other candidates and campaigns waged in an awful lot of places that I remember only for their bad food and uncomfortable motels.
I knew Lee Atwater and watched the development of "wedge politics" flourish from Lee through Ron Kaufman, Charlie Black, Rich Bond, Mary Matalin, and Karl Rove -- with the considerable media help of Roger Ailes and Stuart Stevens.
For those not familiar with the theory of "wedge politics," its basic concept is to drive wedges between different political interest groups -- using fear and intimidation as its primary tools. This process drives many people away from the voting process, while motivating the targeted groups with negative tactics and fear.
It is easy to scare an electorate who remembers a better -- easier -- time, and then blame the current state of national affairs on: Democrats, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, Muslims, women, gays -- take your pick.
The end result is that candidates employing these tactics often win elections, but find themselves in an impossible position to govern as a result of the ill will generated in the electoral process.
One need only reflect on the reprehensible and personal attacks employed by the George W. Bush campaign in the 2000 South Carolina primary against Senator John McCain to get a sense of how "wedge politics" can be effectively and viciously employed
I respected the fact that Lee admitted before his death that "wedge politics" was one of the most damaging tactics ever developed and apologized for the effects it could have on the American political process.
In a Life magazine article written shortly before his death from cancer in 1990, Atwater said that, "Long before I was struck with cancer, I felt something stirring in American society," he said. "It was a sense among the people of the country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- that something was missing from their lives, something crucial. I was trying to position the Republican Party to take advantage of it. But I wasn't exactly sure what 'it' was. My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood."
As we have all witnessed, Republican media strategists have been very effective at scaring the living daylights out of the citizens of this country, and driving down overall turnout. It is a process which, if not stopped soon, may very well become impossible to reverse.
And then -- we might find ourselves well down the road to being a Banana Republic governed by strutting, angry ideologues -- interested more in maintaining their political power than in enacting thoughtful bipartisan policy.
In a famous anecdote often told about President Eisenhower, he was asked prior to his first run for President whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
His answer was, "I am an American."
This country is hungry to put an end to the partisan warfare that has consumed this nation for the last 15 years -- at least.
That hunger, and a deep discontent with the status quo keeps reasserting itself. It raised its head in '96 with the hope that Colin Powell might run. It reemerged with the McCain insurgency, and I believe that it will finally succeed with the candidacy of Howard Dean.
This is not a question of party registration. It is a matter of right and wrong. It is a question of thoughtful policy development that addresses the needs and problems that are facing the majority of people in this country.
I have campaigned all over this country and I have enormous confidence in the basic common sense of the American people. I believe if you speak to them rationally they will listen. I am convinced that one of the reasons that the Dean campaign is gaining such traction is because unlike everyone else they have thrown the rule book away and are beginning to intelligently address the problems that are threatening the nation.
I also believe that they understand that they represent a potential home for millions of disenfranchised traditional Republicans who -- like myself -- are no longer welcome in their own Party.
Governor Dean projects a complete unwillingness to be afraid, and that is the key to taking these people out. From what I am hearing from friends inside the Republican Party, they are deeply concerned by the Dean campaign because they do not know how to deal with it.
I guess I would say to people who have been terrified by President Bush and his administration, "do not be afraid of all Republicans, because there are millions of Republicans who are wonderful caring people. Citizens who embrace the traditions and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower......reach out to them.........and create a radical center where all of us can work together -- even when we disagree."
Please do not tar us all with the same brush. Like all Americans, we love our country, its values and the principles that have made it great. Equally important, we are committed to the vision of the founders of our party who believed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln that, "This country with its institutions belongs to the people who inhabit it."
You should also know that those of us who dare to suggest to Republicans and Independents that there is a better way -- have been threatened and harassed.
Recently I was challenged by a family member as to what my deceased father, a lifelong Republican, would think about my working for a Democratic candidate for president. My answer was that I did not know what he would think either, but then I was not sure what he would think about the world that we live in.
What would he think about a world where intelligent, hard working people can not get a job because they are over the age of 45 -- because it costs corporations too much money to employ them?
What would he think about a world where health insurance and health care costs my family of four $17,000 a year?
What would he think about a government led by a Republican president that is prepared to deficit spend to the tune of $500 billion a year or spend $2.5 trillion over a five year period on a war in a country where we do not belong, while 51,000,000 working people go without health insurance?
This country finds itself in a position where "failure is simply not an option." Like the people who are worried by the policies of the current administration, I too am concerned as to what would happen were Bush/Cheney or more accurately Cheney/Bush and Karl Rove got their way for another four years. It is of grave concern to my wife and it is the reason she has encouraged me to return to the business -- because she believes there are tools and relationships I can bring to the fight that can help Howard Dean become the next president of the United States.
But that success will come much easier if there are welcoming hands reaching out to us.
There is a quotation from Sun Tzu's Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Well I believe we have the advantage of knowing them and ourselves, and they are clueless as to what is going on in Burlington and across the country.
I resolutely agree with President Theodore Roosevelt when he said, "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
It is my hope that we can organize this effort with the sentiments expressed in the final paragraph of Lincoln's first Inaugural address:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Ann Stewart 1008
09-02-2003 03:12 PM ET (US)
Hey Doug thanks for coming back. I was worried that fight between you and Jenny might have ran you off or something. Everybody’s entitled to an opinion. I always encourage Jenny to stay at the debate and I also encourage you too Doug.
Rock I see Joy showed you where the debate is. Now that is a loud comment. Wow that’s harsh.
Keith and Lysa love you guys for stick’in with us at the debate.
I’m fixing to delete the first 800 comments of the debate so we may have more room, but I have already transferred them to a blog where you can easily find you old comments at http://2004electiondebate.blogspot.com/
09-02-2003 03:12 PM ET (US)
Hey Doug thanks for coming back. I was worried that fight between you and Jenny might have ran you off or something. Everybody’s entitled to an opinion. I always encourage Jenny to stay at the debate and I also encourage you too Doug.
Rock I see Joy showed you where the debate is. Now that is a loud comment. Wow that’s harsh.
Keith and Lysa love you guys for stick’in with us at the debate.
I’m fixing to delete the first 800 comments of the debate so we may have more room, but I have already transferred them to a blog where you can easily find you old comments at http://2004electiondebate.blogspot.com/
Lysa 1009
09-02-2003 03:24 PM ET (US)
Working bottom up...
Thanks Keith for the postings on Kerry. I actually did catch a clip of his speech on the way back from re flyering the downtown posters boards. Can't help but to think of the story on Lieberman when the guy wrote of Joe Lieberman saying "I'm Angry" he shook his fist limply. Maybe I didn't catch a good clip, but it didn't sound very forceful or exciting. Kind of lackluster really.
Doug.
Thank you! For copying the Cudhay essay. A real mind bender each time I read it.
Ann,
Absolutely! And thank you again for all of your hard work in this project!
09-02-2003 03:24 PM ET (US)
Working bottom up...
Thanks Keith for the postings on Kerry. I actually did catch a clip of his speech on the way back from re flyering the downtown posters boards. Can't help but to think of the story on Lieberman when the guy wrote of Joe Lieberman saying "I'm Angry" he shook his fist limply. Maybe I didn't catch a good clip, but it didn't sound very forceful or exciting. Kind of lackluster really.
Doug.
Thank you! For copying the Cudhay essay. A real mind bender each time I read it.
Ann,
Absolutely! And thank you again for all of your hard work in this project!
Lysa 1010
09-02-2003 03:25 PM ET (US)
Someone is a little nervous...heheh
"Tom DeLay issued the following press release today:
~~~~
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugarland) today condemned the
comments of presidential candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard
Dean, who said, "John Ashcroft is not a patriot," in New Hampshire
yesterday.
"Howard Dean is a cruel and extremist demagogue," DeLay said.
"John Ashcroft loves America more than Howard Dean could ever know.
John Ashcroft has sacrificed for his country, and devoted his life to
serving it. He is as kind, generous, and patriotic a man as I've ever
met. And Howard Dean is as ignorant on John Ashcroft as he is on
national security."
"Howard Dean's comments are an embarrassment to the democratic
process and the Democrat Party. If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is
the cream of the Democrat crop, next Novembers going to make the 1984
election look like a squeaker." ~~~~
Dean for America Communications Director Tricia Enright responded:
"The narrow ideological agenda of the Delay-Ashcroft wing of the
Republican Party threatens basic American freedoms that have been
enshrined in the Constitution for over 200 years. Those policies are
not only extreme, they are cruel." "
~~~~~~~~~~~
Snipped from URL: "http://blog.deanforamerica.com/index.html"
09-02-2003 03:25 PM ET (US)
Someone is a little nervous...heheh
"Tom DeLay issued the following press release today:
~~~~
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugarland) today condemned the
comments of presidential candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard
Dean, who said, "John Ashcroft is not a patriot," in New Hampshire
yesterday.
"Howard Dean is a cruel and extremist demagogue," DeLay said.
"John Ashcroft loves America more than Howard Dean could ever know.
John Ashcroft has sacrificed for his country, and devoted his life to
serving it. He is as kind, generous, and patriotic a man as I've ever
met. And Howard Dean is as ignorant on John Ashcroft as he is on
national security."
"Howard Dean's comments are an embarrassment to the democratic
process and the Democrat Party. If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is
the cream of the Democrat crop, next Novembers going to make the 1984
election look like a squeaker." ~~~~
Dean for America Communications Director Tricia Enright responded:
"The narrow ideological agenda of the Delay-Ashcroft wing of the
Republican Party threatens basic American freedoms that have been
enshrined in the Constitution for over 200 years. Those policies are
not only extreme, they are cruel." "
~~~~~~~~~~~
Snipped from URL: "http://blog.deanforamerica.com/index.html"
Lysa 1011
09-02-2003 03:27 PM ET (US)
Deaniacs will eat Delay alive for attacking Dean. Nothing like a round about endorsement.
09-02-2003 03:27 PM ET (US)
Deaniacs will eat Delay alive for attacking Dean. Nothing like a round about endorsement.
Keith Brekhus 1012
09-02-2003 03:39 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 03:42 PM
DeLay would know a thing about cruel and extremist demagogues. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black :-).
Tom DeLay can't stand Dean.
That gives me one more reason I am voting for Howard Dean.
And yeah, between DeLay's comments and Karl Rove pretending he wants to face Dean...I can tell the Republican leadership is wetting their pants in fear of people-powered Howard.
Hey maybe DeLay will be right about 2004 being a landslide though...but with him on the losing side...wouldn't that be a hoot ? (November 2004 headlines: Dean carries 49 states--Bush has to cheat just to hold conservative Utah).
09-02-2003 03:39 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-02-2003 03:42 PM
DeLay would know a thing about cruel and extremist demagogues. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black :-).
Tom DeLay can't stand Dean.
That gives me one more reason I am voting for Howard Dean.
And yeah, between DeLay's comments and Karl Rove pretending he wants to face Dean...I can tell the Republican leadership is wetting their pants in fear of people-powered Howard.
Hey maybe DeLay will be right about 2004 being a landslide though...but with him on the losing side...wouldn't that be a hoot ? (November 2004 headlines: Dean carries 49 states--Bush has to cheat just to hold conservative Utah).
sindhu kumar 1013
09-02-2003 07:32 PM ET (US)
if mr. president george w bush cannot get teh economy to turn in his and many millions of americans's favor, the republicans such as delay and dr. frist will be out as majority leaders of teh house and senate respectively.
09-02-2003 07:32 PM ET (US)
if mr. president george w bush cannot get teh economy to turn in his and many millions of americans's favor, the republicans such as delay and dr. frist will be out as majority leaders of teh house and senate respectively.
Ann Stewart 1014
09-02-2003 08:11 PM ET (US)
You know I've been hearing on the news that 2/3's of the American voters still don't know who any of the democratic candidates are. Reports on CNN say many of the American voters can't even name one democratic candidate. Sad hun?
09-02-2003 08:11 PM ET (US)
You know I've been hearing on the news that 2/3's of the American voters still don't know who any of the democratic candidates are. Reports on CNN say many of the American voters can't even name one democratic candidate. Sad hun?
sindhu kumar 1015
09-02-2003 08:52 PM ET (US)
yeah it is a disturbing fact, that two thirds of americans dont know who thepresident is. i also think that many millions of americans (adults and children) are dyslexic and have difficulty reading. to those who are dyslexic, i strongly suggest getting a medical diagnosis by a primary care provider. i would very strongly encourage those who are able to read to pick up the newspaper and read as reading the newspapers is the best way to find out what is going on in the neighborhood.
09-02-2003 08:52 PM ET (US)
yeah it is a disturbing fact, that two thirds of americans dont know who thepresident is. i also think that many millions of americans (adults and children) are dyslexic and have difficulty reading. to those who are dyslexic, i strongly suggest getting a medical diagnosis by a primary care provider. i would very strongly encourage those who are able to read to pick up the newspaper and read as reading the newspapers is the best way to find out what is going on in the neighborhood.
Charles in Montana 1016
09-02-2003 11:11 PM ET (US)
Tom Delay is a bigger asshole than Bush. You could compare him to Unterreichsfuher. Translated that means asshole under Bush.
09-02-2003 11:11 PM ET (US)
Tom Delay is a bigger asshole than Bush. You could compare him to Unterreichsfuher. Translated that means asshole under Bush.
Charles in Montana 1017
09-02-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
Hummm! That must mean Bush sits on Delay all day? How confusing these neocons can be.
09-02-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
Hummm! That must mean Bush sits on Delay all day? How confusing these neocons can be.
Ann Stewart 1018
09-03-2003 12:05 AM ET (US)
Kerry is really getting a lot of press...at least on CNN today anyway. I've seen him on 3 different shows. Also I'm starting to hear about Max Cleland a lot too. I guess they are from the same camp or something hun? What do ya'll know about Cleland?
09-03-2003 12:05 AM ET (US)
Kerry is really getting a lot of press...at least on CNN today anyway. I've seen him on 3 different shows. Also I'm starting to hear about Max Cleland a lot too. I guess they are from the same camp or something hun? What do ya'll know about Cleland?
sindhu kumar 1019
09-03-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-03-2003 12:21 AM
max cleland is the former united states senator from georgia who is a triple amputee and decorated vietnam war veteran. he lost his reelection bid for a second senate term to saxby chambliss during then governor bush's run for the presidency. he ran for the senate seat from georgia to replace the moderate republican paul coverdell who died in office while serving georgia in the united states senate.
09-03-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-03-2003 12:21 AM
max cleland is the former united states senator from georgia who is a triple amputee and decorated vietnam war veteran. he lost his reelection bid for a second senate term to saxby chambliss during then governor bush's run for the presidency. he ran for the senate seat from georgia to replace the moderate republican paul coverdell who died in office while serving georgia in the united states senate.
Will Parker 1020
09-03-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
Well I have been telling Ann for weeks I
would comment on the 2004 Impeachment. Here I go, since I began paying attention
to politics circa '86 our country has never had a less deserving
(lost
popular vote by ~.6 million),
less eloquent
(Bush invented nucular weapons...NUCLEAR!!!!!),
less intellectual
(Bush was a C student maybe),
more arrogant
(after campaigning as the moderate conservative and
barely winning he moved way right)
most vacationing (Bush
was just returning from a month vacation about 9/01/01 when
Bush
was warned of Airplanes being used as WMD"s!! This is fact !!)
worst environmental
(I challenge
anyone to name an environmentally friendly event in the last 3 years),
most hypocritical
(Dubya's
girlfriend in ~70's had an illegal abortion
for starters) I could
and likely will go on but the gist is we have a college
lackey who was caught shoplifting
at Yale with 2 later DWI's
(his license was suspended for 18 months '71-2 when Maine only required 90day
suspension for 1st time DWI read see
Let's talk about
George Dubya Bush as a young man
(DIck
Cheney has 3 DWI/DUI's))
and while I really could
not give a damn about any of the personal stuff other than the intellect, the
hypocrisy in the way Bush has attacked his opponents i.e. Ann Richards & Gore
personally is hate politics, Clinton/Gore democrats reject it.
(Gore pledged not to
and did never attack Bush's shaky personal life thus your disbelief at the above
facts). What bothers me most is the
hypocrisy in the minds of Dubya strongest supporters who would and did try to
demonize & impeach Clinton for having similar personality traits/flaws as Bush
does. Luckily, there is no Ken Starr anymore. When desperate the only way to
fight maybe to attack your opponents character but, fortunately there will be no
need for this in 2004. The Clinton/Gore Democrats have the issues I believe and
with Wesley Clark
an unassuming mild mannered eloquent inspirational hard working
intellect
debating Dubya about the issues why Iraq alone?, 3 million
lost jobs and still counting, the largest deficits EVER!!, a r
eversal
the Clinton economic programs & surpluses, a world that hates our
governments policies more than ever (who wouldn't after the WMD lies) and
havin
g
squandered the world wide good will generated by 9/11 it won't be easy for the
Great Deceiver to maintain his title. When you compare the credentials,
integrity and the intellect of the 4 star
General Wesley Clark
to Bush it would be the greatest
miscalculation of one's lifetime to chose the status quo over one of the great
men of our time. Wesley Clark was
a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he
graduated first in his class. He holds (3) a Master’s Degree in
Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes
Scholar. I encourage everyone to look
closely at the Bush policies and try and point out the non-wedge issues you can
persuade other people to support and compare them to the straight talking Wesley
Clark and his ideas about the economy, taxes, the environment, health care,
education, abortion, national security, guns, the "patriot act" and
decide for yourself who would make a better President?
09-03-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
Well I have been telling Ann for weeks I
would comment on the 2004 Impeachment. Here I go, since I began paying attention
to politics circa '86 our country has never had a less deserving
(lost
popular vote by ~.6 million),
less eloquent
(Bush invented nucular weapons...NUCLEAR!!!!!),
less intellectual
(Bush was a C student maybe),
more arrogant
(after campaigning as the moderate conservative and
barely winning he moved way right)
most vacationing (Bush
was just returning from a month vacation about 9/01/01 when
Bush
was warned of Airplanes being used as WMD"s!! This is fact !!)
worst environmental
(I challenge
anyone to name an environmentally friendly event in the last 3 years),
most hypocritical
(Dubya's
girlfriend in ~70's had an illegal abortion
for starters) I could
and likely will go on but the gist is we have a college
lackey who was caught shoplifting
at Yale with 2 later DWI's
(his license was suspended for 18 months '71-2 when Maine only required 90day
suspension for 1st time DWI read see
Let's talk about
George Dubya Bush as a young man
(DIck
Cheney has 3 DWI/DUI's))
and while I really could
not give a damn about any of the personal stuff other than the intellect, the
hypocrisy in the way Bush has attacked his opponents i.e. Ann Richards & Gore
personally is hate politics, Clinton/Gore democrats reject it.
(Gore pledged not to
and did never attack Bush's shaky personal life thus your disbelief at the above
facts). What bothers me most is the
hypocrisy in the minds of Dubya strongest supporters who would and did try to
demonize & impeach Clinton for having similar personality traits/flaws as Bush
does. Luckily, there is no Ken Starr anymore. When desperate the only way to
fight maybe to attack your opponents character but, fortunately there will be no
need for this in 2004. The Clinton/Gore Democrats have the issues I believe and
with Wesley Clark
an unassuming mild mannered eloquent inspirational hard working
intellect
debating Dubya about the issues why Iraq alone?, 3 million
lost jobs and still counting, the largest deficits EVER!!, a r
eversal
the Clinton economic programs & surpluses, a world that hates our
governments policies more than ever (who wouldn't after the WMD lies) and
havin
g
squandered the world wide good will generated by 9/11 it won't be easy for the
Great Deceiver to maintain his title. When you compare the credentials,
integrity and the intellect of the 4 star
General Wesley Clark
to Bush it would be the greatest
miscalculation of one's lifetime to chose the status quo over one of the great
men of our time. Wesley Clark was
a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he
graduated first in his class. He holds (3) a Master’s Degree in
Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes
Scholar. I encourage everyone to look
closely at the Bush policies and try and point out the non-wedge issues you can
persuade other people to support and compare them to the straight talking Wesley
Clark and his ideas about the economy, taxes, the environment, health care,
education, abortion, national security, guns, the "patriot act" and
decide for yourself who would make a better President?
sindhu kumar 1021
09-03-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
time for me to log off. see you guys and gals tomorrow
09-03-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
time for me to log off. see you guys and gals tomorrow
Will Parker 1022
09-03-2003 01:01 AM ET (US)
Ann I hope you can delete my previous msg and replace with this more readible version.
Well I have been telling Ann for weeks I
would comment on the 2004 Impeachment. Here I go, since I began paying
attention
to politics circa '86 our country has never had a less deserving
(lost popular vote by ~.6 million),
less eloquent (Bush invented
nucular weapons...NUCLEAR!!!!!),less
intellectual (Bush
was a C student maybe), more
arrogant (after campaigning
as the moderate conservative and barely winning he moved way
right), most vacationing
(Bush was just returning from a
month vacation about 9/01/01 when
Bush
was warned of Airplanes being used as WMD"s!! This is fact !!)
worst environmentalist
(I challenge anyone to name an
environmentally friendly event in the last 3 years),
most hypocritical
(Dubya's
girlfriend in ~70's had an illegal abortion
for starters) I could and likely
will go on but the gist is we have a college lackey who was caught
shoplifting at Yale with 2 later
DWI's (his
license was suspended for 18 months '71-2 when Maine only required 90day
suspension for 1st time DWI read see
Let's talk about
George Dubya Bush as a young man
(DIck Cheney has 3 DWI/DUI's)
and while I really could not
give a damn about any of the personal stuff other than the intellect, the
hypocrisy in the way Bush has attacked his opponents i.e. Ann Richards & Gore
personally is hate politics, Clinton/Gore democrats reject it.
(Gore pledged not to
and did never attack Bush's shaky personal life thus your disbelief at the
above facts). What bothers me most
is the hypocrisy in the minds of Dubya strongest supporters who would and did
try to demonize & impeach Clinton for having similar personality traits/flaws
as Bush does. Luckily, there is no Ken Starr anymore. When desperate the only
way to fight maybe to attack your opponents character but, fortunately there
will be no need for this in 2004. The Clinton/Gore Democrats have the issues I
believe and with
Wesley Clark
an unassuming mild mannered eloquent inspirational hard
working intellect
debating
Dubya about the issues why Iraq alone?, 3 million lost jobs
and still counting, the largest deficits EVER!!, a reversal the
Clinton economic programs & surpluses, a world that hates our
governments policies more than ever (who wouldn't after the WMD lies) and
having "" squandered the world wide good will generated by 9/11 it won't be
easy for the Great Deceiver to maintain his title. When you compare the
credentials, integrity and the intellect of the 4 star
General Wesley Clark
image to
Bush
image it would be the
greatest miscalculation of one's lifetime to chose the status quo over one of
the great men of our time. Wesley Clark was
a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he
graduated first in his class. He holds (3) a Master’s Degree in
Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a
Rhodes Scholar. I encourage everyone
to look closely at the Bush policies and try and point out the non-wedge
issues you can persuade other people to support and compare them to the
straight talking Wesley Clark and his ideas about the economy,
taxes, the environment, health care, education, abortion, national security,
guns, the "patriot act" and decide for yourself who would make a
better President?
09-03-2003 01:01 AM ET (US)
Ann I hope you can delete my previous msg and replace with this more readible version.
Well I have been telling Ann for weeks I
would comment on the 2004 Impeachment. Here I go, since I began paying
attention
to politics circa '86 our country has never had a less deserving
(lost popular vote by ~.6 million),
less eloquent (Bush invented
nucular weapons...NUCLEAR!!!!!),less
intellectual (Bush
was a C student maybe), more
arrogant (after campaigning
as the moderate conservative and barely winning he moved way
right), most vacationing
(Bush was just returning from a
month vacation about 9/01/01 when
Bush
was warned of Airplanes being used as WMD"s!! This is fact !!)
worst environmentalist
(I challenge anyone to name an
environmentally friendly event in the last 3 years),
most hypocritical
(Dubya's
girlfriend in ~70's had an illegal abortion
for starters) I could and likely
will go on but the gist is we have a college lackey who was caught
shoplifting at Yale with 2 later
DWI's (his
license was suspended for 18 months '71-2 when Maine only required 90day
suspension for 1st time DWI read see
Let's talk about
George Dubya Bush as a young man
(DIck Cheney has 3 DWI/DUI's)
and while I really could not
give a damn about any of the personal stuff other than the intellect, the
hypocrisy in the way Bush has attacked his opponents i.e. Ann Richards & Gore
personally is hate politics, Clinton/Gore democrats reject it.
(Gore pledged not to
and did never attack Bush's shaky personal life thus your disbelief at the
above facts). What bothers me most
is the hypocrisy in the minds of Dubya strongest supporters who would and did
try to demonize & impeach Clinton for having similar personality traits/flaws
as Bush does. Luckily, there is no Ken Starr anymore. When desperate the only
way to fight maybe to attack your opponents character but, fortunately there
will be no need for this in 2004. The Clinton/Gore Democrats have the issues I
believe and with
Wesley Clark
an unassuming mild mannered eloquent inspirational hard
working intellect
debating
Dubya about the issues why Iraq alone?, 3 million lost jobs
and still counting, the largest deficits EVER!!, a reversal the
Clinton economic programs & surpluses, a world that hates our
governments policies more than ever (who wouldn't after the WMD lies) and
having "" squandered the world wide good will generated by 9/11 it won't be
easy for the Great Deceiver to maintain his title. When you compare the
credentials, integrity and the intellect of the 4 star
General Wesley Clark
image to
Bush
image it would be the
greatest miscalculation of one's lifetime to chose the status quo over one of
the great men of our time. Wesley Clark was
a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he
graduated first in his class. He holds (3) a Master’s Degree in
Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a
Rhodes Scholar. I encourage everyone
to look closely at the Bush policies and try and point out the non-wedge
issues you can persuade other people to support and compare them to the
straight talking Wesley Clark and his ideas about the economy,
taxes, the environment, health care, education, abortion, national security,
guns, the "patriot act" and decide for yourself who would make a
better President?
Ann Stewart 1023
09-03-2003 01:02 AM ET (US)
Oh dear God Will buddy I can't believe you made it in tonight. I love that comment. You are brilliant buddy. You need to teach me some of your computer tricks. I know you have a lot of them. That is an excellent comment and totally different new point of view. I will post that one for sure and I will see you at work tomorrow. Thanks for coming in Will.
Goodnight Sindhu and all you other wonderful and lovely supporters. I’ll see you tomorrow, but ladies before I go, I am still building the web site on the woman’s point of view vote at http://president2004.4t.com/ Ladies you can post your comments here or on my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com So far Dean has most of the comments, so Patti if your out there, why don’t you or Ellen just give me a nice statement. I have already placed that site in with dozmos engine searcher so it would be good publicity for your candidate’s ladies.
Good night all
09-03-2003 01:02 AM ET (US)
Oh dear God Will buddy I can't believe you made it in tonight. I love that comment. You are brilliant buddy. You need to teach me some of your computer tricks. I know you have a lot of them. That is an excellent comment and totally different new point of view. I will post that one for sure and I will see you at work tomorrow. Thanks for coming in Will.
Goodnight Sindhu and all you other wonderful and lovely supporters. I’ll see you tomorrow, but ladies before I go, I am still building the web site on the woman’s point of view vote at http://president2004.4t.com/ Ladies you can post your comments here or on my news blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com So far Dean has most of the comments, so Patti if your out there, why don’t you or Ellen just give me a nice statement. I have already placed that site in with dozmos engine searcher so it would be good publicity for your candidate’s ladies.
Good night all
Ann Stewart 1024
09-03-2003 01:06 AM ET (US)
I can delete it for you Will but I would like to keep it, because I think they are both very readable. When I get to work tomorrow I might take your original version and post it on my news blog if that is OK with you. Thanks Will, I adore you buddy.
09-03-2003 01:06 AM ET (US)
I can delete it for you Will but I would like to keep it, because I think they are both very readable. When I get to work tomorrow I might take your original version and post it on my news blog if that is OK with you. Thanks Will, I adore you buddy.
Keith Brekhus 1025
09-03-2003 10:07 AM ET (US)
The Bush administration is strong on national security? Think again.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
The Worst Foreign Policy Team in Decades
After seeing no conservative backlash to Richard Armitage’s trial balloon of last week, and on the eve of a alarming CBO report tomorrow that says our continuing occupation of Iraq is unsustainable over the long haul without adverse effects for our national security, the Bush Administration will cry uncle in the coming days and ask for a new UN resolution to gain international support for multilateral troop deployments and funding.
The cave-in comes on the same day of massive anti-US demonstrations during the funeral services for a slain Muslim cleric, and after a report shows that we are suffering an average of 10 attacks upon our forces a day, most of them unreported by the Pentagon. It also comes as members of both parties in Congress return from recess skeptical that the Administration knows what it is doing.
There is no other way to say this: the retreat by the Bush Administration on this matter represents the collapse of the PNAC agenda. And with the Taliban reasserting themselves in Afghanistan, Iran doing whatever it takes to undercut American concerns over their growing nuclear ambitions, and North Korea playing the rope-a-dope with the Bush Administration, it is hard to see where Rummy/Cheney/Rice will be able to stir up another war anytime soon.
The Bush Hall of Shame and Ineptitude includes the following:
Our toppling of the Taliban is now being reversed by our neglect of Afghanistan.
None of our stated aims for toppling Saddam (ties to Al Qaeda, involvement in 9/11, possession of an imminent WMD capability, elimination of a terror threat in the Middle East, liberation a grateful people and improvement of their lives) have yet to be realized. And the Administration was totally out of its league in handling the occupation.
The Middle East peace process is stalled once again.
The war on terrorism has been stunted and set back by the diversion into Iraq.
North Korea has been allowed through Bush neglect to become the world’s ninth nuclear power, while laughing at our demands.
The toppling of Saddam has led to an increase in the worldwide price of oil, rather than a decrease.
In short, there has not been one success by this Administration in following the PNAC script. And there will be no support from any of our allies for any new wars we want to start anywhere in the globe, due to our allies’ lack of trust in us and their doubts about our competence.
Unless you are an oil company or defense contractor executive, the Bush foreign policy after three years has been an abject failure. If you are the parents of a member of our armed forces, the future of your loved ones is grim.
Congrats Mr. Bush. You and the rest of the blundering PNAC cabal that runs this so-called government are the worst foreign policy team in the last quarter-century. Your blunders and stubbornness, credited by your scribe Bob Woodward as “moral clarity,” have managed to evoke comparisons to the Clinton team, and you fair poorly in that matchup.
We are a long way from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and those glossy hero-worshipping pictures in Vanity Fair of your vaunted team, are we not Mr. Bush?
09-03-2003 10:07 AM ET (US)
The Bush administration is strong on national security? Think again.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
The Worst Foreign Policy Team in Decades
After seeing no conservative backlash to Richard Armitage’s trial balloon of last week, and on the eve of a alarming CBO report tomorrow that says our continuing occupation of Iraq is unsustainable over the long haul without adverse effects for our national security, the Bush Administration will cry uncle in the coming days and ask for a new UN resolution to gain international support for multilateral troop deployments and funding.
The cave-in comes on the same day of massive anti-US demonstrations during the funeral services for a slain Muslim cleric, and after a report shows that we are suffering an average of 10 attacks upon our forces a day, most of them unreported by the Pentagon. It also comes as members of both parties in Congress return from recess skeptical that the Administration knows what it is doing.
There is no other way to say this: the retreat by the Bush Administration on this matter represents the collapse of the PNAC agenda. And with the Taliban reasserting themselves in Afghanistan, Iran doing whatever it takes to undercut American concerns over their growing nuclear ambitions, and North Korea playing the rope-a-dope with the Bush Administration, it is hard to see where Rummy/Cheney/Rice will be able to stir up another war anytime soon.
The Bush Hall of Shame and Ineptitude includes the following:
Our toppling of the Taliban is now being reversed by our neglect of Afghanistan.
None of our stated aims for toppling Saddam (ties to Al Qaeda, involvement in 9/11, possession of an imminent WMD capability, elimination of a terror threat in the Middle East, liberation a grateful people and improvement of their lives) have yet to be realized. And the Administration was totally out of its league in handling the occupation.
The Middle East peace process is stalled once again.
The war on terrorism has been stunted and set back by the diversion into Iraq.
North Korea has been allowed through Bush neglect to become the world’s ninth nuclear power, while laughing at our demands.
The toppling of Saddam has led to an increase in the worldwide price of oil, rather than a decrease.
In short, there has not been one success by this Administration in following the PNAC script. And there will be no support from any of our allies for any new wars we want to start anywhere in the globe, due to our allies’ lack of trust in us and their doubts about our competence.
Unless you are an oil company or defense contractor executive, the Bush foreign policy after three years has been an abject failure. If you are the parents of a member of our armed forces, the future of your loved ones is grim.
Congrats Mr. Bush. You and the rest of the blundering PNAC cabal that runs this so-called government are the worst foreign policy team in the last quarter-century. Your blunders and stubbornness, credited by your scribe Bob Woodward as “moral clarity,” have managed to evoke comparisons to the Clinton team, and you fair poorly in that matchup.
We are a long way from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and those glossy hero-worshipping pictures in Vanity Fair of your vaunted team, are we not Mr. Bush?
Keith Brekhus 1026
09-03-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
The mess in Iraq....
New York Times
By DONALD HEPBURN
The Bush administration's recent willingness to consider a greater United Nations role on the ground is the first sign that it is aware of how vastly mistaken its assertions about the occupation were. Contrary to the prewar view that Iraq's oil revenues would greatly offset American costs, we now know that Iraq with its shattered economy, devastated oil industry and plundered national wealth is incapable of making any significant reimbursement of the invasion and occupation costs. And the military expense is only a fraction of the total expense of making Iraq into a functioning country.
So, how much is this experiment in nation-building going to cost the American taxpayer? First, let's consider what has already been spent. According to the Pentagon, the cost of preparation, aid to noncombatant allies and the invasion itself amounted to $45 billion. Then there is the much-bandied "billion dollars a week" phrase, which seems an accurate estimate of military expenses since the end of serious fighting in May. Assuming a five-year occupation, that's some $300 billion.
..................
Clearly, such a program cannot be financed entirely by Iraq's oil reserves. Those who accused the Bush administration of instigating a "war for oil" certainly hadn't done the math. Before the war the hope was that Iraq's annual production could relatively quickly rise to $15 billion to $20 billion per year. However, the system is far more decrepit than such estimates assumed, and combined with the near-daily sabotage of facilities and pipelines, it appears that oil revenues will rise only slowly over the next three years, from approximately $10 billion in 2004 to $20 billion in 2006.
Barry McCaffrey said that the Bush Administration will have to go to Congress and get $100 billion.
We will not be spending that money on Iraq. Any member of Congress who votes for that will lose their seat.
Any half-wit candidate can go to a power plant, school, or road in any district in the US and undercut that argument. All that money going right into Halliburton's pockets? Who are we kidding? Whitey Bulger could run and win against that platform. The current crop of candidates will gut Bush alive with it.
This is Bush's war. He didn't share the burden with anyone, not the E-Ring, not the House or Senate or our allies, much less the American people. Bush wanted all the glory to fall on him. What he and his aides didn't realize or want to realize was that you share risk for a reason. While we may not want Iraq to devolve into a Congo-like civil war, his lies and inability to level with the American people will cost him support.
The news media is begining to report the makings of a disaster. In a war, which at best had tepid support, the cost and burden is now exploding to the point that the US people will no longer support it.
In a jobless "recovery", with a climbing state and local taxes, failing schools and an infrastructure degraded by neglect and corruption, asking for a large sum for Iraq will meet with massive political resistance. He promised a simple outcome. There is no simple outcome. Even with a new resolution, there will not be a massive influx of troops because the US is saying, bluntly, we want new targets so our troops can go home. So how do you walk into the French Parliament and say send 10,000 new targets to replace Americans? Who's going to vote for that? Can you imagine such a vote in Pakistan or India? Forget about the money.
No one is going to pay that bill. Not the UN and certainly not Congress.
Number of Wounded in Action on Rise
Iraq Toll Reflects Medical Advances, Resistance Troops Face
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A01
U.S. battlefield casualties in Iraq are increasing dramatically in the face of continued attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein's military and other forces, with almost 10 American troops a day now being officially declared "wounded in action."
The number of those wounded in action, which totals 1,124 since the war began in March, has grown so large, and attacks have become so commonplace, that U.S. Central Command usually issues news releases listing injuries only when the attacks kill one or more troops. The result is that many injuries go unreported.
The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as "improvised explosive devices."
Indeed, the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq is now more than twice that of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The total increased more than 35 percent in August -- with an average of almost 10 troops a day injured last month.
......................
With no fanfare and almost no public notice, giant C-17 transport jets arrive virtually every night at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, on medical evacuation missions. Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received non-hostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill.
09-03-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
The mess in Iraq....
New York Times
By DONALD HEPBURN
The Bush administration's recent willingness to consider a greater United Nations role on the ground is the first sign that it is aware of how vastly mistaken its assertions about the occupation were. Contrary to the prewar view that Iraq's oil revenues would greatly offset American costs, we now know that Iraq with its shattered economy, devastated oil industry and plundered national wealth is incapable of making any significant reimbursement of the invasion and occupation costs. And the military expense is only a fraction of the total expense of making Iraq into a functioning country.
So, how much is this experiment in nation-building going to cost the American taxpayer? First, let's consider what has already been spent. According to the Pentagon, the cost of preparation, aid to noncombatant allies and the invasion itself amounted to $45 billion. Then there is the much-bandied "billion dollars a week" phrase, which seems an accurate estimate of military expenses since the end of serious fighting in May. Assuming a five-year occupation, that's some $300 billion.
..................
Clearly, such a program cannot be financed entirely by Iraq's oil reserves. Those who accused the Bush administration of instigating a "war for oil" certainly hadn't done the math. Before the war the hope was that Iraq's annual production could relatively quickly rise to $15 billion to $20 billion per year. However, the system is far more decrepit than such estimates assumed, and combined with the near-daily sabotage of facilities and pipelines, it appears that oil revenues will rise only slowly over the next three years, from approximately $10 billion in 2004 to $20 billion in 2006.
Barry McCaffrey said that the Bush Administration will have to go to Congress and get $100 billion.
We will not be spending that money on Iraq. Any member of Congress who votes for that will lose their seat.
Any half-wit candidate can go to a power plant, school, or road in any district in the US and undercut that argument. All that money going right into Halliburton's pockets? Who are we kidding? Whitey Bulger could run and win against that platform. The current crop of candidates will gut Bush alive with it.
This is Bush's war. He didn't share the burden with anyone, not the E-Ring, not the House or Senate or our allies, much less the American people. Bush wanted all the glory to fall on him. What he and his aides didn't realize or want to realize was that you share risk for a reason. While we may not want Iraq to devolve into a Congo-like civil war, his lies and inability to level with the American people will cost him support.
The news media is begining to report the makings of a disaster. In a war, which at best had tepid support, the cost and burden is now exploding to the point that the US people will no longer support it.
In a jobless "recovery", with a climbing state and local taxes, failing schools and an infrastructure degraded by neglect and corruption, asking for a large sum for Iraq will meet with massive political resistance. He promised a simple outcome. There is no simple outcome. Even with a new resolution, there will not be a massive influx of troops because the US is saying, bluntly, we want new targets so our troops can go home. So how do you walk into the French Parliament and say send 10,000 new targets to replace Americans? Who's going to vote for that? Can you imagine such a vote in Pakistan or India? Forget about the money.
No one is going to pay that bill. Not the UN and certainly not Congress.
Number of Wounded in Action on Rise
Iraq Toll Reflects Medical Advances, Resistance Troops Face
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A01
U.S. battlefield casualties in Iraq are increasing dramatically in the face of continued attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein's military and other forces, with almost 10 American troops a day now being officially declared "wounded in action."
The number of those wounded in action, which totals 1,124 since the war began in March, has grown so large, and attacks have become so commonplace, that U.S. Central Command usually issues news releases listing injuries only when the attacks kill one or more troops. The result is that many injuries go unreported.
The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as "improvised explosive devices."
Indeed, the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq is now more than twice that of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The total increased more than 35 percent in August -- with an average of almost 10 troops a day injured last month.
......................
With no fanfare and almost no public notice, giant C-17 transport jets arrive virtually every night at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, on medical evacuation missions. Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received non-hostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill.
Keith Brekhus 1027
09-03-2003 12:51 PM ET (US)
A compendium of Bush lies...
http://www.prospect.org/issue_pages/bushlies.html
09-03-2003 12:51 PM ET (US)
A compendium of Bush lies...
http://www.prospect.org/issue_pages/bushlies.html
Ann Stewart 1028
09-03-2003 01:52 PM ET (US)
Hi Keith
I want you to know I agree with you totally Iraq is a big mess. It is going to be hard to pay for and sad we did what we did that to Iraq in the first place. I think it could go down in history as the war Bush really pushed hard to get. So it's on his head now. Thanks for all the good posting Keith. You have really made this debate a more interesting place to be on the web.
09-03-2003 01:52 PM ET (US)
Hi Keith
I want you to know I agree with you totally Iraq is a big mess. It is going to be hard to pay for and sad we did what we did that to Iraq in the first place. I think it could go down in history as the war Bush really pushed hard to get. So it's on his head now. Thanks for all the good posting Keith. You have really made this debate a more interesting place to be on the web.
sindhu kumar 1029
09-03-2003 06:23 PM ET (US)
here is the link that says president bush wants to cut over time pay to 8 million americans.
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns03282003a.cfm
09-03-2003 06:23 PM ET (US)
here is the link that says president bush wants to cut over time pay to 8 million americans.
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns03282003a.cfm
sindhu kumar 1030
09-03-2003 06:42 PM ET (US)
senator liberman's plan for health insurance is the cheapest
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/politics/campaigns/03LIEB.htm
09-03-2003 06:42 PM ET (US)
senator liberman's plan for health insurance is the cheapest
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/politics/campaigns/03LIEB.htm
Ann Stewart 1031
09-03-2003 07:41 PM ET (US)
Hey Sindhu
Thanks for the links. It's good to see you out tonight. It's been kinda a slow day at the debate today, but I'm glad to hear from you and Keith.
I saw Wesley Clark give an interview on CNN today he said he would make a decision on whether he would run or not in mid September, but it sounds like he is going to do it.
09-03-2003 07:41 PM ET (US)
Hey Sindhu
Thanks for the links. It's good to see you out tonight. It's been kinda a slow day at the debate today, but I'm glad to hear from you and Keith.
I saw Wesley Clark give an interview on CNN today he said he would make a decision on whether he would run or not in mid September, but it sounds like he is going to do it.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1032
09-03-2003 11:04 PM ET (US)
You guys go read some of the things that Bush has in store for us.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
I think if you would just read over Bush's plans you would see he has wonderful plans that are going to work for THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF AMERICA. and all this bad stuff you are saying about him is just not true. You need to remain open minded, put away your feelings of hate for our leaders. That is the way it has always been. We electe a man and than we point the finger at the man we chose and start telling lies about him and blaming him for everything the way you guys do is so silly. You guys would blame President Bush if you own hair fell out or if the sky was falling. That's just silly. like you blaming him for the blackout. I'm so sure that is President Bush's foult. He had nothing to do with that. People are just looking for a way to destroy him. The Dem's will do or say anything and lye just to make Bush look bad. Jest read it.
09-03-2003 11:04 PM ET (US)
You guys go read some of the things that Bush has in store for us.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
I think if you would just read over Bush's plans you would see he has wonderful plans that are going to work for THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF AMERICA. and all this bad stuff you are saying about him is just not true. You need to remain open minded, put away your feelings of hate for our leaders. That is the way it has always been. We electe a man and than we point the finger at the man we chose and start telling lies about him and blaming him for everything the way you guys do is so silly. You guys would blame President Bush if you own hair fell out or if the sky was falling. That's just silly. like you blaming him for the blackout. I'm so sure that is President Bush's foult. He had nothing to do with that. People are just looking for a way to destroy him. The Dem's will do or say anything and lye just to make Bush look bad. Jest read it.
Lysa 1033
09-04-2003 01:40 AM ET (US)
Hiya Jennifer,
I think that was a Freudian typo your last line of "Jest read it"
:)
In seriousness though, Look what Bush promised in 2000. Has he succeeded in fulfilling those promises? If you are truthful the only answer is no. He has divided this country. He has Not Been Compassionate. How can anyone believe him after his broken promises? Why do you?
Look at the company he keeps and who advises him.
" According to reliable sources, as well as our own Al Martin Raw.com investigation, Karl Rove is, in fact, the grandson of Karl Heinz Roverer, the gauleiter of Mecklenburg, who was also a partner and senior engineer of Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurb¸ro AG. They built Birchenau, the concentration camp in Nazi Germany.
So Karl Rove has been identified as the leaker responsible for the deaths of more than 70 CIA assets overseas"
http://www.almartinraw.com/public/column106.html
Now Al can write 70 CIA assets, but lets make it perfectly clear, That is Seventy Human Beings. Gone, Kaput, History, Dead.
Bush follows Rove. Rove is no good. Bad apple, Bad seed, Very bad. And you want the grandson of a Nazi concentration camp builder to be overseeing America? I think I am open minded, but there are limits.
The sky can't fall, but Bush can and will.
09-04-2003 01:40 AM ET (US)
Hiya Jennifer,
I think that was a Freudian typo your last line of "Jest read it"
:)
In seriousness though, Look what Bush promised in 2000. Has he succeeded in fulfilling those promises? If you are truthful the only answer is no. He has divided this country. He has Not Been Compassionate. How can anyone believe him after his broken promises? Why do you?
Look at the company he keeps and who advises him.
" According to reliable sources, as well as our own Al Martin Raw.com investigation, Karl Rove is, in fact, the grandson of Karl Heinz Roverer, the gauleiter of Mecklenburg, who was also a partner and senior engineer of Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurb¸ro AG. They built Birchenau, the concentration camp in Nazi Germany.
So Karl Rove has been identified as the leaker responsible for the deaths of more than 70 CIA assets overseas"
http://www.almartinraw.com/public/column106.html
Now Al can write 70 CIA assets, but lets make it perfectly clear, That is Seventy Human Beings. Gone, Kaput, History, Dead.
Bush follows Rove. Rove is no good. Bad apple, Bad seed, Very bad. And you want the grandson of a Nazi concentration camp builder to be overseeing America? I think I am open minded, but there are limits.
The sky can't fall, but Bush can and will.
Stewart 1034
09-04-2003 09:30 AM ET (US)
Good Morning Lysa Dar'in.
I think you made some good points that haven't been brought up before. Jennifer don't always think Bush is the greatest at everything, in fact she stated to me once that he has made some big mistakes, but she also feels "he has done as good as any man could in his job as President." She says she thinks the economy is getting better. I will say that Real estate interest rates are back on the rise so if you didn't refinance before when the rate was low, well I'm sorry for you, but that is a sign that the economy is improving. So maybe that is one for Bush. Well I will see you later. I got to get to work.
09-04-2003 09:30 AM ET (US)
Good Morning Lysa Dar'in.
I think you made some good points that haven't been brought up before. Jennifer don't always think Bush is the greatest at everything, in fact she stated to me once that he has made some big mistakes, but she also feels "he has done as good as any man could in his job as President." She says she thinks the economy is getting better. I will say that Real estate interest rates are back on the rise so if you didn't refinance before when the rate was low, well I'm sorry for you, but that is a sign that the economy is improving. So maybe that is one for Bush. Well I will see you later. I got to get to work.
Keith Brekhus 1035
09-04-2003 10:40 AM ET (US)
I don't blame Bush for the blackout (though energy deregulation pushed by Republicans was a factor), but I do blame him for gross fiscal mismanagement and lack of strategic planning in Iraq.
Next year's deficit will clear a record 500 billion and Bush is seeking an additional 65 billion for fixing the debacle he has created in Iraq...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under pressure to quickly bolster military operations and reconstruction efforts in postwar Iraq , the Bush administration is drawing up an ambitious spending plan that could cost up to $65 billion, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
Senior White House officials told key members of Congress they would propose the emergency spending package "sooner rather than later," most likely before President Bush attends the annual session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 23, sources said.
"We frankly just don't have the time to wait any longer," Rep. James Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who chairs the foreign aid subcommittee in the House of Representatives, told Fox News.
The proposed budget request would be a dramatic change of course for the administration, which had not planned to ask Congress for additional money until late this year.
"We need to do this now. They're working on the numbers as we speak," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said after meetings at the White House.
The White House declined to talk about numbers and insisted no decisions had been made.
"We are still assessing the needs and listening to (the top U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul) Bremer and the commanders in the field about what the exact needs are," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, a Florida Republican, said figures were not discussed at a White House meeting on Wednesday but that the $65 billion estimate was "probably accurate. That's the sense I'm getting."
Sources said the administration was reviewing a range of funding options.
A leading proposal would provide $55 billion to the Pentagon (news - web sites) for military operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
In addition, the White House would be asking Congress for $10 billion to expedite reconstruction efforts. The U.S. Agency for International Development could receive up to $2.7 billion of that, sources said.
The reconstruction package would also include an estimated $1 billion for Afghanistan (news - web sites), which, like Iraq, has been wracked by postwar violence.
Many funding issues have yet to be resolved, such as the number of countries sending peacekeepers to Iraq and whether Washington would foot the bill for their deployment.
GROWING CONCERNS
Congressional aides said the proposed request reflected growing concerns -- both within the White House and Congress -- about mounting violence and the slow pace of reconstruction.
U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq are running low on money. The president has promised to provide them the resources they need, but critics say he has yet to deliver.
Earlier this year, Congress gave Bush $79 billion to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $2.5 billion as seed money for Iraq's postwar restoration.
By asking for extra money sooner than expected, Bush could demonstrate his commitment to Iraq before appealing to other nations to volunteer their own troops to a multinational force. Secretary of State Colin Powell has began negotiations with Security Council members on a draft U.N. resolution that would adjust the arrangements for running postwar Iraq.
A massive spending request could be politically risky for Bush.
Administration officials have played down the cost of reconstruction for months, although they now concede oil revenues will not meet Iraq's needs as the White House had hoped.
A $65 billion request would also push the nation's budget deficit to well above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time.
09-04-2003 10:40 AM ET (US)
I don't blame Bush for the blackout (though energy deregulation pushed by Republicans was a factor), but I do blame him for gross fiscal mismanagement and lack of strategic planning in Iraq.
Next year's deficit will clear a record 500 billion and Bush is seeking an additional 65 billion for fixing the debacle he has created in Iraq...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under pressure to quickly bolster military operations and reconstruction efforts in postwar Iraq , the Bush administration is drawing up an ambitious spending plan that could cost up to $65 billion, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
Senior White House officials told key members of Congress they would propose the emergency spending package "sooner rather than later," most likely before President Bush attends the annual session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 23, sources said.
"We frankly just don't have the time to wait any longer," Rep. James Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who chairs the foreign aid subcommittee in the House of Representatives, told Fox News.
The proposed budget request would be a dramatic change of course for the administration, which had not planned to ask Congress for additional money until late this year.
"We need to do this now. They're working on the numbers as we speak," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said after meetings at the White House.
The White House declined to talk about numbers and insisted no decisions had been made.
"We are still assessing the needs and listening to (the top U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul) Bremer and the commanders in the field about what the exact needs are," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, a Florida Republican, said figures were not discussed at a White House meeting on Wednesday but that the $65 billion estimate was "probably accurate. That's the sense I'm getting."
Sources said the administration was reviewing a range of funding options.
A leading proposal would provide $55 billion to the Pentagon (news - web sites) for military operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
In addition, the White House would be asking Congress for $10 billion to expedite reconstruction efforts. The U.S. Agency for International Development could receive up to $2.7 billion of that, sources said.
The reconstruction package would also include an estimated $1 billion for Afghanistan (news - web sites), which, like Iraq, has been wracked by postwar violence.
Many funding issues have yet to be resolved, such as the number of countries sending peacekeepers to Iraq and whether Washington would foot the bill for their deployment.
GROWING CONCERNS
Congressional aides said the proposed request reflected growing concerns -- both within the White House and Congress -- about mounting violence and the slow pace of reconstruction.
U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq are running low on money. The president has promised to provide them the resources they need, but critics say he has yet to deliver.
Earlier this year, Congress gave Bush $79 billion to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $2.5 billion as seed money for Iraq's postwar restoration.
By asking for extra money sooner than expected, Bush could demonstrate his commitment to Iraq before appealing to other nations to volunteer their own troops to a multinational force. Secretary of State Colin Powell has began negotiations with Security Council members on a draft U.N. resolution that would adjust the arrangements for running postwar Iraq.
A massive spending request could be politically risky for Bush.
Administration officials have played down the cost of reconstruction for months, although they now concede oil revenues will not meet Iraq's needs as the White House had hoped.
A $65 billion request would also push the nation's budget deficit to well above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time.
Ann Stewart 1036
09-04-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
Hey Keith
How are ya buddy? I don't blame Bush for the blackout either. I still think he's made a lot of other mistakes though. Jenny you just seem a little defensive if you ask me. But I guess you got to be in this debate.
09-04-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
Hey Keith
How are ya buddy? I don't blame Bush for the blackout either. I still think he's made a lot of other mistakes though. Jenny you just seem a little defensive if you ask me. But I guess you got to be in this debate.
sindhu kumar 1039
09-04-2003 09:49 PM ET (US)
i am watching the first game of the football season, while watching what dean is saying. so, tonight, i wont be logging into quicktopic.
09-04-2003 09:49 PM ET (US)
i am watching the first game of the football season, while watching what dean is saying. so, tonight, i wont be logging into quicktopic.
Charles in Montana 1040
09-05-2003 12:10 AM ET (US)
Who would you blame for the power outage in Iraq? The Northeast is out a few days and it becomes a big deal? How about haveing no power to pump water, a basic need to sustain life. How would we Americans respond to these conditons month after month? Here in Montana it would be inconvinent but not life threating. We have streams and rivers over every hill. What about Pheonix? 115 degrees, no rivers to speak of and most of the streams are dry. The Iraqi rivers are not like our fast cold streams that are drinkable. The rivers in Iraq are like huge slow moving canals of warm bacteria infected water. With out treatment it is unfit for humun consumption. The people in Iraq are suffering cholera and deadly disease. We are still unable to bring power to the cities of Iraq on any kind of a dependable basis. Lets be honest here. Who should take reponsibily for action that lead to this reality. We were told the infrastucture of Iraq would not be bomded. Most of the power gird and water treatment plants were targeted.
09-05-2003 12:10 AM ET (US)
Who would you blame for the power outage in Iraq? The Northeast is out a few days and it becomes a big deal? How about haveing no power to pump water, a basic need to sustain life. How would we Americans respond to these conditons month after month? Here in Montana it would be inconvinent but not life threating. We have streams and rivers over every hill. What about Pheonix? 115 degrees, no rivers to speak of and most of the streams are dry. The Iraqi rivers are not like our fast cold streams that are drinkable. The rivers in Iraq are like huge slow moving canals of warm bacteria infected water. With out treatment it is unfit for humun consumption. The people in Iraq are suffering cholera and deadly disease. We are still unable to bring power to the cities of Iraq on any kind of a dependable basis. Lets be honest here. Who should take reponsibily for action that lead to this reality. We were told the infrastucture of Iraq would not be bomded. Most of the power gird and water treatment plants were targeted.
Charles in Montana 1041
09-05-2003 12:27 AM ET (US)
Who would you blame for he power crisis in California? Grey Davis is under seige for a huge deficit. A whole bunch of that debt was aquired during the energy crisis. Ken Lay, Enron CEO and energy advisor to The Bush administration manipulated electricity to create the crisis and bilk California out of billions of dollars. None of the people have gone to jail! Why? Friends in high places? This has also helped the Republicans to unseat a Democraticly elected governor. (or at least try) Where are our representitives to stand up for the people? Where is Bush? Why does he have no comment on these issues?
09-05-2003 12:27 AM ET (US)
Who would you blame for he power crisis in California? Grey Davis is under seige for a huge deficit. A whole bunch of that debt was aquired during the energy crisis. Ken Lay, Enron CEO and energy advisor to The Bush administration manipulated electricity to create the crisis and bilk California out of billions of dollars. None of the people have gone to jail! Why? Friends in high places? This has also helped the Republicans to unseat a Democraticly elected governor. (or at least try) Where are our representitives to stand up for the people? Where is Bush? Why does he have no comment on these issues?
Charles in Montana 1042
09-05-2003 12:39 AM ET (US)
The power outage in the Northeast is the after affect of Republican sponsered deregulation. Many pulic utilies have been taken over by profit driven corporations. The companies do not put money in to upgrade the system. Profits are more important. Soon the tax payer is called on to ante up, The repairs are made , your bill goes up. Nice way to make money! You pay twice!
09-05-2003 12:39 AM ET (US)
The power outage in the Northeast is the after affect of Republican sponsered deregulation. Many pulic utilies have been taken over by profit driven corporations. The companies do not put money in to upgrade the system. Profits are more important. Soon the tax payer is called on to ante up, The repairs are made , your bill goes up. Nice way to make money! You pay twice!
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1043
09-05-2003 01:22 AM ET (US)
I just feel like Bush gets blamed for everything. If the sky was falling the Dems would say it was because of him.
09-05-2003 01:22 AM ET (US)
I just feel like Bush gets blamed for everything. If the sky was falling the Dems would say it was because of him.
Wayne in Missouri 1044
09-05-2003 10:05 AM ET (US)
We have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit that is projected to become a 6 trillion dollar budget in 10 years if we don't change course.
We had a 200 billion dollar budget surplus when Bush took office.
This one is squarely on Bush. And sticking our head in the sand like Ostriches or covering are eyes and ears like the three monkeys, just because we get goosebumps when we see the President in a jumpsuit using our military as a stageprop for his re-election campaign isn't going to help.
Anyone who cares about the world our children will live in ought to care about the enormous budget deficit that Bush is creating.
Think of it as our collective credit card bill. It's time to take Bush's credit card away before we go bankrupt. And the way to do that is to vote him out of office so he can only spend on his own credit card.
Budget-wise the sky is falling and, like it or not, it is Bush's fault.
I'm not letting him play with our credit card anymore. I'm voting Democrat (which I did not do in 1992 or 1996 by the way) in 2004.
09-05-2003 10:05 AM ET (US)
We have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit that is projected to become a 6 trillion dollar budget in 10 years if we don't change course.
We had a 200 billion dollar budget surplus when Bush took office.
This one is squarely on Bush. And sticking our head in the sand like Ostriches or covering are eyes and ears like the three monkeys, just because we get goosebumps when we see the President in a jumpsuit using our military as a stageprop for his re-election campaign isn't going to help.
Anyone who cares about the world our children will live in ought to care about the enormous budget deficit that Bush is creating.
Think of it as our collective credit card bill. It's time to take Bush's credit card away before we go bankrupt. And the way to do that is to vote him out of office so he can only spend on his own credit card.
Budget-wise the sky is falling and, like it or not, it is Bush's fault.
I'm not letting him play with our credit card anymore. I'm voting Democrat (which I did not do in 1992 or 1996 by the way) in 2004.
Wayne in Missouri 1045
09-05-2003 10:13 AM ET (US)
The second line of my post below should say 6 trillion dollar budget deficit not 6 trillion dollar budget.
And more on this issue:
"The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) August 2003 Budget and Economic Update shows a baseline projection of a $401 billion deficit for 2003, and a $480 billion deficit for 2004...;however, as the report notes, the baseline is not intended to be a good predictor of actual budgetary outcomes. A better predictor of budget deficits under current policy would put the deficit for 2004 at $496 billion and the 10-year deficit at nearly $6 trillion."
http://www.ombwatch.org/budget
09-05-2003 10:13 AM ET (US)
The second line of my post below should say 6 trillion dollar budget deficit not 6 trillion dollar budget.
And more on this issue:
"The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) August 2003 Budget and Economic Update shows a baseline projection of a $401 billion deficit for 2003, and a $480 billion deficit for 2004...;however, as the report notes, the baseline is not intended to be a good predictor of actual budgetary outcomes. A better predictor of budget deficits under current policy would put the deficit for 2004 at $496 billion and the 10-year deficit at nearly $6 trillion."
http://www.ombwatch.org/budget
sindhu kumar 1046
09-05-2003 10:17 AM ET (US)
this is the link to where all of you can write to your senators and congressmen urging them to save overtime pay for all the citizens.
http://www.saveovertimepay.org/
09-05-2003 10:17 AM ET (US)
this is the link to where all of you can write to your senators and congressmen urging them to save overtime pay for all the citizens.
http://www.saveovertimepay.org/
Lee P. 1047
09-05-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
On the race in california, I really I'm being to not like Gray Davis. He's such a weinie. I'm not sure I'm a democrate I may just be pretending to be a Democrate so you guys won't hate me. I think Cruz B. is the man on that race for Gov. Cruz is good. I'd vote for him.
09-05-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
On the race in california, I really I'm being to not like Gray Davis. He's such a weinie. I'm not sure I'm a democrate I may just be pretending to be a Democrate so you guys won't hate me. I think Cruz B. is the man on that race for Gov. Cruz is good. I'd vote for him.
Lee P. 1050
09-05-2003 01:42 PM ET (US)
Nan Not really...I have no love for Bush. He's the Devil. I do like Cruz though.
09-05-2003 01:42 PM ET (US)
Nan Not really...I have no love for Bush. He's the Devil. I do like Cruz though.
Brad 1051
09-05-2003 01:44 PM ET (US)
u have a Laura Bush blow up doll? Dang Lee~! you must be a republican.
09-05-2003 01:44 PM ET (US)
u have a Laura Bush blow up doll? Dang Lee~! you must be a republican.
Brad 1052
09-05-2003 02:16 PM ET (US)
only a republican would have a laura bush blow up doll. Lee, I'm going to buy you the matching George Bush sheets to go with your pillow cases.
09-05-2003 02:16 PM ET (US)
only a republican would have a laura bush blow up doll. Lee, I'm going to buy you the matching George Bush sheets to go with your pillow cases.
Lee P. 1053
09-05-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)
Brad, I told you the republican party is the devil. I just like Cruz in Cal. I think Davis is acting like a weinie the more he talks the more I don't like him. I can't believe Clinton supports him. That's one strike against Clinton.
09-05-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)
Brad, I told you the republican party is the devil. I just like Cruz in Cal. I think Davis is acting like a weinie the more he talks the more I don't like him. I can't believe Clinton supports him. That's one strike against Clinton.
Rockeem 1054
09-05-2003 02:27 PM ET (US)
Bush looks like the Devil, with that evil grin always on his face. Somebody aught to slap his evil ass stupid.
09-05-2003 02:27 PM ET (US)
Bush looks like the Devil, with that evil grin always on his face. Somebody aught to slap his evil ass stupid.
sindhu kumar 1055
09-05-2003 03:43 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-05-2003 03:43 PM
rockeem: you rock.
09-05-2003 03:43 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-05-2003 03:43 PM
rockeem: you rock.
Ann Stewart 1056
09-05-2003 04:03 PM ET (US)
Dear God Guys
When I ask for comments, you guys really come though for me. You guys are so funny. Sindhu meet my crazy work crew. Funny aren't they? If you could only meet them in person. You would go home very day with pain in your sides from laughing so hard.
09-05-2003 04:03 PM ET (US)
Dear God Guys
When I ask for comments, you guys really come though for me. You guys are so funny. Sindhu meet my crazy work crew. Funny aren't they? If you could only meet them in person. You would go home very day with pain in your sides from laughing so hard.
unknown 1057
09-05-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Cruz is a contender. Arianna rocks.
I watched the California gubernatorial debate on tv. Arnold wasn't there but that was ok, because today I saw a new ad from him that reassured me that he can indeed handle being governor if elected. You see, for about thirty seconds he took no more than 10-word-long questions from a multiethnic bunch of concerned citizens/paid actors and answered them in a forceful, articulate manner. I wondered if those people in the ad were SAG members.
Besides, every so often during the televised debate I would ask myself after a reporter's question or a candidate's rebuttal, "What would Arnold say?" and in my mind I could never hear what he was saying over the loud audience applause anway.
Gray Davis' one-on-one chairside chat with some Bernie-esque dude was prefaced by a montage of clips including that most unfortunate one in which he plays air conductor, moving his hands up and down in front of him as if he's orchestrated the whole recall thing as a fun character-building exercise.
I so wanted to do a very blog-style play by play of the MTV video music awards but it looks like I waited too long so this first debate will have to do instead. I am of course, much less informed for this kind of thing.
One other thing I recall from the Davis portion of the debate is his analogy comparing the recall to Tampa Bay losing against the Oakland Raiders and asking for a do-over. I think that was supposed to incite the audience or something, but hey, what did he expect. The debate was recorded in Walnut Creek.
Davis took questions from "civilians." I spotted a former classmate among them and after googling his name read that he's now a lobbyist. Makes me wonder about the rest of the people who ask questions and why their affiliations besides name and city are not disclosed.
So then we got another montage of clips of weirdos in wigs filing to run for governor, ending with a woman who says she'll vote Republican. When pressed by the reporter on which Republican she'll be voting for, she answers Cruz Bustamante, who is a Democratic candidate. This gets a reaction out of the audience, laughter. And I don't think they were all laughing at her either. Cruz is seen in the background, furiously scribbling away on his notepad no doubt trying to spin this his way somehow.
Cruz: Before the last week or so the only thing I knew about him was some parking space scandal thing that supposedly illustrated how not friendly he and Gray were. By the way, whether or not Cruz wins the race could have a serious impact on whether or not my dad gives up his combover hairdo.
Ueberroth: I couldn't tell if he was bored by the whole deal or just really hadn't studied up on the issues when he started giving the same answer to every question toward the end. He managed to give a rather dismissive and undiplomatic reply to an audience question from a poet asking about funding for arts programs like hers. I guess he and his pollsters have determined that they don't need the poet vote.
Camejo/McClintock: Sorry, neither made much of an impression on me. I realize they're basically on opposite ends of the political spectrum but that's about it. P.S. I still don't get why Bill Simon isn't running. Did he make some special deal with Arnold that he would drop out if he gets to pull the strings 20% of the time?
Arianna: Talk about entertainment value. The audience really seemed to like her, or at least they liked laughing at her. Quote: "How dumb is that?" in reference to another candidate who couldn't respond to that rhetorical question. She seems to be promoting herself as Mama Arianna for governor which could be ok but leaves me wondering if her real life role as a mom is going to be attacked.
While the candidates spoke their ages, residences and birthplaces were displayed on the screen. That's how I found out that Cruz is the only one born in California. The rest of the guys, including Davis, were born in NY and Illinois, Arnold and Arianna in Europe. Yes, I know that Europe is not a country and that none of this matters much.
09-05-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
Cruz is a contender. Arianna rocks.
I watched the California gubernatorial debate on tv. Arnold wasn't there but that was ok, because today I saw a new ad from him that reassured me that he can indeed handle being governor if elected. You see, for about thirty seconds he took no more than 10-word-long questions from a multiethnic bunch of concerned citizens/paid actors and answered them in a forceful, articulate manner. I wondered if those people in the ad were SAG members.
Besides, every so often during the televised debate I would ask myself after a reporter's question or a candidate's rebuttal, "What would Arnold say?" and in my mind I could never hear what he was saying over the loud audience applause anway.
Gray Davis' one-on-one chairside chat with some Bernie-esque dude was prefaced by a montage of clips including that most unfortunate one in which he plays air conductor, moving his hands up and down in front of him as if he's orchestrated the whole recall thing as a fun character-building exercise.
I so wanted to do a very blog-style play by play of the MTV video music awards but it looks like I waited too long so this first debate will have to do instead. I am of course, much less informed for this kind of thing.
One other thing I recall from the Davis portion of the debate is his analogy comparing the recall to Tampa Bay losing against the Oakland Raiders and asking for a do-over. I think that was supposed to incite the audience or something, but hey, what did he expect. The debate was recorded in Walnut Creek.
Davis took questions from "civilians." I spotted a former classmate among them and after googling his name read that he's now a lobbyist. Makes me wonder about the rest of the people who ask questions and why their affiliations besides name and city are not disclosed.
So then we got another montage of clips of weirdos in wigs filing to run for governor, ending with a woman who says she'll vote Republican. When pressed by the reporter on which Republican she'll be voting for, she answers Cruz Bustamante, who is a Democratic candidate. This gets a reaction out of the audience, laughter. And I don't think they were all laughing at her either. Cruz is seen in the background, furiously scribbling away on his notepad no doubt trying to spin this his way somehow.
Cruz: Before the last week or so the only thing I knew about him was some parking space scandal thing that supposedly illustrated how not friendly he and Gray were. By the way, whether or not Cruz wins the race could have a serious impact on whether or not my dad gives up his combover hairdo.
Ueberroth: I couldn't tell if he was bored by the whole deal or just really hadn't studied up on the issues when he started giving the same answer to every question toward the end. He managed to give a rather dismissive and undiplomatic reply to an audience question from a poet asking about funding for arts programs like hers. I guess he and his pollsters have determined that they don't need the poet vote.
Camejo/McClintock: Sorry, neither made much of an impression on me. I realize they're basically on opposite ends of the political spectrum but that's about it. P.S. I still don't get why Bill Simon isn't running. Did he make some special deal with Arnold that he would drop out if he gets to pull the strings 20% of the time?
Arianna: Talk about entertainment value. The audience really seemed to like her, or at least they liked laughing at her. Quote: "How dumb is that?" in reference to another candidate who couldn't respond to that rhetorical question. She seems to be promoting herself as Mama Arianna for governor which could be ok but leaves me wondering if her real life role as a mom is going to be attacked.
While the candidates spoke their ages, residences and birthplaces were displayed on the screen. That's how I found out that Cruz is the only one born in California. The rest of the guys, including Davis, were born in NY and Illinois, Arnold and Arianna in Europe. Yes, I know that Europe is not a country and that none of this matters much.
Wayne in Missouri 1058
09-06-2003 12:02 AM ET (US)
Patti,
Kerry's announcement speech must have given him a bump. Here is a poll you'll like. I believe Dean is still the frontrunner though, but thought I'd post this one for you.
from www.dailykos.com
Latest CNN national poll
Lots of treading water within the margin of error, with Kerry slightly up, Lieberman slightly down, and Gephardt down quite a bit (but barely within the MOE). (June numbers in parenthesis):
Not sure: 21 (23)
Kerry: 16 (14)
Lieberman: 13 (16)
Dean: 11 (10)
Other: 9 (3)
Gephardt: 7 (12)
Edwards: 7 (6)
Sharpton: 5 (5)
Graham: 4 (4)
Braun: 4 (4)
Kucinich: 3 (3)
"Other" went from three to nine, which can only mean one thing.
(Clark).
09-06-2003 12:02 AM ET (US)
Patti,
Kerry's announcement speech must have given him a bump. Here is a poll you'll like. I believe Dean is still the frontrunner though, but thought I'd post this one for you.
from www.dailykos.com
Latest CNN national poll
Lots of treading water within the margin of error, with Kerry slightly up, Lieberman slightly down, and Gephardt down quite a bit (but barely within the MOE). (June numbers in parenthesis):
Not sure: 21 (23)
Kerry: 16 (14)
Lieberman: 13 (16)
Dean: 11 (10)
Other: 9 (3)
Gephardt: 7 (12)
Edwards: 7 (6)
Sharpton: 5 (5)
Graham: 4 (4)
Braun: 4 (4)
Kucinich: 3 (3)
"Other" went from three to nine, which can only mean one thing.
(Clark).
Ann Stewart 1059
09-06-2003 12:20 AM ET (US)
Hey Wayne
I too have been hearing good things from Kerry side. I know Patti would be happy to hear it too, but I haven't seen her at the debate for a while. I really miss her too. She was the toughest Kerry supporter I had ever seen.
Hello unkown welcome to the debate.
09-06-2003 12:20 AM ET (US)
Hey Wayne
I too have been hearing good things from Kerry side. I know Patti would be happy to hear it too, but I haven't seen her at the debate for a while. I really miss her too. She was the toughest Kerry supporter I had ever seen.
Hello unkown welcome to the debate.
sindhu kumar 1060
09-06-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
kerry really needs patti's support as she was his biggest, strongest and loudest supporter here on this site.
09-06-2003 12:41 AM ET (US)
kerry really needs patti's support as she was his biggest, strongest and loudest supporter here on this site.
Ann Stewart 1061
09-06-2003 01:08 AM ET (US)
Hey your right Sindhu. She might had gotten sick of it though. Anyway, I'm going night night now. Good night everybody. Thanks for coming in today.
09-06-2003 01:08 AM ET (US)
Hey your right Sindhu. She might had gotten sick of it though. Anyway, I'm going night night now. Good night everybody. Thanks for coming in today.
Patti Ferschke 1062
09-06-2003 02:40 AM ET (US)
Hi,Patti whacks back ! The News is terrific and we're only beginning......I took a much needed time off and time out ! KERRY 2004 !
09-06-2003 02:40 AM ET (US)
Hi,Patti whacks back ! The News is terrific and we're only beginning......I took a much needed time off and time out ! KERRY 2004 !
Charles in Montana 1063
09-06-2003 11:17 AM ET (US)
Bad news for Bush. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/vacation_memo/
09-06-2003 11:17 AM ET (US)
Bad news for Bush. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/vacation_memo/
Wayne in Missouri 1064
09-06-2003 11:35 AM ET (US)
Another poll of interest:
Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Sept. 3-4, 2003. N=883 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.
“If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?”
29% Defintely For
41% Definitely Against
Potentially good news for the future of our country, imho.
09-06-2003 11:35 AM ET (US)
Another poll of interest:
Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Sept. 3-4, 2003. N=883 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.
“If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?”
29% Defintely For
41% Definitely Against
Potentially good news for the future of our country, imho.
Ann Stewart 1065
09-06-2003 12:53 PM ET (US)
Great reports Wayne and Charles. Patti thanks for coming in and letting us know you are alive. We were starting to worry about you. I want you guys to know I am not done editing on all the Election Sites I've been Building. I am still working on it, I do a little on it everyday.
09-06-2003 12:53 PM ET (US)
Great reports Wayne and Charles. Patti thanks for coming in and letting us know you are alive. We were starting to worry about you. I want you guys to know I am not done editing on all the Election Sites I've been Building. I am still working on it, I do a little on it everyday.
doug in indiana 1066
09-06-2003 01:14 PM ET (US)
U.S. companies slash payrolls for a seventh straight month
By LEIGH STROPE
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - U.S. companies slashed payrolls for a seventh straight month in August.
Friday's report raised new worries that a weak job market could shackle the budding economic recovery despite a slight improvement in the overall unemployment rate.
Payrolls fell by 93,000 last month after a loss of 49,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department reported from its survey of U.S. businesses. Analysts had expected an improving economy to create 12,000 jobs.
"This suggests that we may be further than we thought from a truly sustainable economic recovery," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services Inc.
Based on a separate survey of households, the unemployment rate fell in August to 6.1 percent from 6.2 percent. Labor Department analysts think the payroll statistics from the survey of businesses provide a more accurate picture of the economy because the survey figures are based on a larger sample.
Recent economic data had suggested the economy was perking up. Many retailers reported robust August sales, construction spending was up, and manufacturers saw demand for their products sharply rise.
Improvements have failed to reach the job market, however. Businesses remain cautious about hiring and are holding down costs by doing more with fewer workers. The huge rise in productivity is to blame for some of the job losses.
Also worrisome is that layoffs occurred in a range of industries last month. Hiring was reported in health care and construction, but the gains were too small to offset losses in manufacturing, business services and government.
The longer companies put off hiring, the more the recovery is at risk, economists say. People worried about their jobs stop spending, and consumer spending has been the major driver of the economy.
"I don't think the recent revival in the economy is sustainable unless we see some job growth soon," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "We need to see those jobs to help pick up the slack when the benefits of tax cuts and interest rates begin to fade early next year."
Continued job losses could spell problems for President Bush. Polls show the economy is replacing terrorism and Iraq as the top concern for likely voters. The loss of more than 3 million jobs since Bush took office is giving Democrats ammunition heading into next year's election campaign.
"At this rate, there will be only one job left to cut by November 2004: George Bush's," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of nine Democrats vying to challenge Bush.
The president, mindful that his father lost re-election in a bad economy, made three trips to middle America this week -- including Kansas City -- to talk about the economy and defend his tax cuts.
Bush said Friday that "there are a lot of Americans looking for work, and we have to do something about that in Washington, D.C."
Bush said he saw hopeful signs, such as rising business orders.
Job creation is often a lagging indicator, he said, "the last thing to arrive on the scene" in a recovery. And productivity is growing faster than job growth, meaning the economy is not expanding rapidly enough to create sufficient hiring, he said.
"Today's report shows we've got more to do, and I'm not going be satisfied until every American who's looking for a job can find a job," Bush said.
The president said his plans will spur more hiring. Those include health care measures, streamlined regulations, restrictions on medical lawsuits, a comprehensive energy plan, expanded trade and tax breaks.
Many economists now think the lack of new jobs means structural changes are occurring in the economy instead of cyclical ups and downs. The United States is losing market share to global competitors.
In short, a flood of jobs is going overseas and will not be replaced, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo.
"We have simply seen the tip of the iceberg," Sohn said. "I think it will get worse, not better."
Some reports estimate 5 million jobs, many of them high-paying, will be lost to other countries by 2015.
Manufacturing has lost nearly 16 percent of its work force, or 2.7 million jobs, in a record 37 straight months. An additional 44,000 jobs were lost last month.
The president of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jerry Jasinowski, called Friday's job report lousy, saying it should serve to spur policy-makers into action.
"The economic strength of our country is built upon our manufacturing base, and we are in danger of losing our best people and our productivity," he said. "We cannot maintain strong economic growth without a strong manufacturing base."
With other parts of the economy on the mend, economists still think the Federal Reserve will hold a key short-term interest rate at a 45-year low of 1 percent when it meets Sept. 16. If the job market does not improve, however, analysts do not rule out another Fed rate reduction later.
"Another month like this and rate cuts will definitely be back on the table," Cheney said.
09-06-2003 01:14 PM ET (US)
U.S. companies slash payrolls for a seventh straight month
By LEIGH STROPE
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - U.S. companies slashed payrolls for a seventh straight month in August.
Friday's report raised new worries that a weak job market could shackle the budding economic recovery despite a slight improvement in the overall unemployment rate.
Payrolls fell by 93,000 last month after a loss of 49,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department reported from its survey of U.S. businesses. Analysts had expected an improving economy to create 12,000 jobs.
"This suggests that we may be further than we thought from a truly sustainable economic recovery," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services Inc.
Based on a separate survey of households, the unemployment rate fell in August to 6.1 percent from 6.2 percent. Labor Department analysts think the payroll statistics from the survey of businesses provide a more accurate picture of the economy because the survey figures are based on a larger sample.
Recent economic data had suggested the economy was perking up. Many retailers reported robust August sales, construction spending was up, and manufacturers saw demand for their products sharply rise.
Improvements have failed to reach the job market, however. Businesses remain cautious about hiring and are holding down costs by doing more with fewer workers. The huge rise in productivity is to blame for some of the job losses.
Also worrisome is that layoffs occurred in a range of industries last month. Hiring was reported in health care and construction, but the gains were too small to offset losses in manufacturing, business services and government.
The longer companies put off hiring, the more the recovery is at risk, economists say. People worried about their jobs stop spending, and consumer spending has been the major driver of the economy.
"I don't think the recent revival in the economy is sustainable unless we see some job growth soon," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "We need to see those jobs to help pick up the slack when the benefits of tax cuts and interest rates begin to fade early next year."
Continued job losses could spell problems for President Bush. Polls show the economy is replacing terrorism and Iraq as the top concern for likely voters. The loss of more than 3 million jobs since Bush took office is giving Democrats ammunition heading into next year's election campaign.
"At this rate, there will be only one job left to cut by November 2004: George Bush's," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of nine Democrats vying to challenge Bush.
The president, mindful that his father lost re-election in a bad economy, made three trips to middle America this week -- including Kansas City -- to talk about the economy and defend his tax cuts.
Bush said Friday that "there are a lot of Americans looking for work, and we have to do something about that in Washington, D.C."
Bush said he saw hopeful signs, such as rising business orders.
Job creation is often a lagging indicator, he said, "the last thing to arrive on the scene" in a recovery. And productivity is growing faster than job growth, meaning the economy is not expanding rapidly enough to create sufficient hiring, he said.
"Today's report shows we've got more to do, and I'm not going be satisfied until every American who's looking for a job can find a job," Bush said.
The president said his plans will spur more hiring. Those include health care measures, streamlined regulations, restrictions on medical lawsuits, a comprehensive energy plan, expanded trade and tax breaks.
Many economists now think the lack of new jobs means structural changes are occurring in the economy instead of cyclical ups and downs. The United States is losing market share to global competitors.
In short, a flood of jobs is going overseas and will not be replaced, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo.
"We have simply seen the tip of the iceberg," Sohn said. "I think it will get worse, not better."
Some reports estimate 5 million jobs, many of them high-paying, will be lost to other countries by 2015.
Manufacturing has lost nearly 16 percent of its work force, or 2.7 million jobs, in a record 37 straight months. An additional 44,000 jobs were lost last month.
The president of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jerry Jasinowski, called Friday's job report lousy, saying it should serve to spur policy-makers into action.
"The economic strength of our country is built upon our manufacturing base, and we are in danger of losing our best people and our productivity," he said. "We cannot maintain strong economic growth without a strong manufacturing base."
With other parts of the economy on the mend, economists still think the Federal Reserve will hold a key short-term interest rate at a 45-year low of 1 percent when it meets Sept. 16. If the job market does not improve, however, analysts do not rule out another Fed rate reduction later.
"Another month like this and rate cuts will definitely be back on the table," Cheney said.
Wayne in Missouri 1068
09-06-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
New Zogby National Poll of likely Democratic Primary voters shows Dean leading the Democratic Field!
Dean 16%
Kerry 13%
Lieberman 12%
Gephardt 8%
all others 3% or less
09-06-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
New Zogby National Poll of likely Democratic Primary voters shows Dean leading the Democratic Field!
Dean 16%
Kerry 13%
Lieberman 12%
Gephardt 8%
all others 3% or less
Wayne in Missouri 1069
09-06-2003 03:54 PM ET (US)
BUSH JOB APPROVAL CONTINUES TO TAKE A DIVE
Zogby poll shows Bush approval down to 45% (the lowest in his presidency) and disapproval up to 54%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732
Predictably given the week's bad news for Bush, Rove (Bush's fulltime campaign manager) is planning a carefully scripted Presidential address to try and turn things around.
09-06-2003 03:54 PM ET (US)
BUSH JOB APPROVAL CONTINUES TO TAKE A DIVE
Zogby poll shows Bush approval down to 45% (the lowest in his presidency) and disapproval up to 54%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732
Predictably given the week's bad news for Bush, Rove (Bush's fulltime campaign manager) is planning a carefully scripted Presidential address to try and turn things around.
Ann Stewart 1070
09-06-2003 08:49 PM ET (US)
Dear Supporters
I just found out someone is translating my entire site including this debate into spainsh for us. Is that not amazing? I wonder who would do that? I hope that's a good sign. So hey keep the comments coming, cause someone is reading it. Even translating it to Spainsh for us.
09-06-2003 08:49 PM ET (US)
Dear Supporters
I just found out someone is translating my entire site including this debate into spainsh for us. Is that not amazing? I wonder who would do that? I hope that's a good sign. So hey keep the comments coming, cause someone is reading it. Even translating it to Spainsh for us.
Charles in Montana 1071
09-06-2003 10:21 PM ET (US)
Oh man is this a good one. Karl Rove, who is he? http://www.rense.com/general41/endof.html
09-06-2003 10:21 PM ET (US)
Oh man is this a good one. Karl Rove, who is he? http://www.rense.com/general41/endof.html
Michael Bohannon 1072
09-06-2003 10:26 PM ET (US)
I was just wondering how much can a President and his or her policies really affect the economy? Is the economy something that can be controlled? Sure, we influence it through planning and what not, but can we implement policies that have predictable effects? I'm only asking this because I was watching a debate on television where most of the guests were slamming Bush on the economy. Everyone seemed to be in agreement on the fact that Bush was "solely" responsible for the deplorable state of the economy- that is until an audience member had the audacity to suggest that maybe it was Clinton's signing of NAFTA into law that was responsible. And to his credit none of them seemed to have a legitimate rebuttal. I'm not taking up for Bush or claiming to be an economist, but in reality the state of the economy is contingent upon many factors. In fact, the country waffling back and forth between two economic ideologies could also be the problem. Hell, it could be Nixon's fault for all we know; maybe his policies are just now influencing the economy because of certain conditions heretofore unavailable to influence true implementation. I know it sounds absurd, but I can't believe the economy is this simplistic mechanistic system with predicitable outcomes where responsibility for its state of affairs can be easily assessed. But I will say this, a President can be held accountable for how he or she deals with economic downturns.
09-06-2003 10:26 PM ET (US)
I was just wondering how much can a President and his or her policies really affect the economy? Is the economy something that can be controlled? Sure, we influence it through planning and what not, but can we implement policies that have predictable effects? I'm only asking this because I was watching a debate on television where most of the guests were slamming Bush on the economy. Everyone seemed to be in agreement on the fact that Bush was "solely" responsible for the deplorable state of the economy- that is until an audience member had the audacity to suggest that maybe it was Clinton's signing of NAFTA into law that was responsible. And to his credit none of them seemed to have a legitimate rebuttal. I'm not taking up for Bush or claiming to be an economist, but in reality the state of the economy is contingent upon many factors. In fact, the country waffling back and forth between two economic ideologies could also be the problem. Hell, it could be Nixon's fault for all we know; maybe his policies are just now influencing the economy because of certain conditions heretofore unavailable to influence true implementation. I know it sounds absurd, but I can't believe the economy is this simplistic mechanistic system with predicitable outcomes where responsibility for its state of affairs can be easily assessed. But I will say this, a President can be held accountable for how he or she deals with economic downturns.
Ann Stewart 1073
09-06-2003 11:10 PM ET (US)
Dear Charles
I tried to click that link and didn't work for me.
09-06-2003 11:10 PM ET (US)
Dear Charles
I tried to click that link and didn't work for me.
Wayne in Missouri 1074
09-06-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
Michael,
Fair point. I'd say the President is only partially responsible for the economy (say 20% responsible for the sake of a guess). However, the President is significantly responsible for the budget deficit and that effects the economy. I have no doubt that Bush's cutting of taxes while increasing spending is contributing to our deficit which will ultimately be bad in the long run for the economy and the country.
Many things are out of the President's control, but when it comes to racking up a 500 billion dollar budget deficit I'd give Bush as much as 45% of the blame.
09-06-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
Michael,
Fair point. I'd say the President is only partially responsible for the economy (say 20% responsible for the sake of a guess). However, the President is significantly responsible for the budget deficit and that effects the economy. I have no doubt that Bush's cutting of taxes while increasing spending is contributing to our deficit which will ultimately be bad in the long run for the economy and the country.
Many things are out of the President's control, but when it comes to racking up a 500 billion dollar budget deficit I'd give Bush as much as 45% of the blame.
Charles in Montana 1075
09-06-2003 11:39 PM ET (US)
Ann, I went back and checked the url and it is the same as I posted. Lets try it one more time. If this fails go to rense.com and scroll down to Wilson Affair. http://www.rense.com/general41/endof.html
09-06-2003 11:39 PM ET (US)
Ann, I went back and checked the url and it is the same as I posted. Lets try it one more time. If this fails go to rense.com and scroll down to Wilson Affair. http://www.rense.com/general41/endof.html
Charles in Montana 1078
09-06-2003 11:45 PM ET (US)
Got it finally. Please comment on this article. And thank you for bearing with me.
09-06-2003 11:45 PM ET (US)
Got it finally. Please comment on this article. And thank you for bearing with me.
Ann Stewart 1079
09-06-2003 11:58 PM ET (US)
So Karl Rove has been identified as the leaker responsible for the deaths of more than 70 CIA assets overseas
When Ambassador Wilson was asked how he knew it was Rove, he had documents in his possession identifying Rove as the leaker from a secret investigation of the State Department's Internal;
Charles good article I haven't heard that before. Thanks for bring it to my attention. You rock!!
09-06-2003 11:58 PM ET (US)
So Karl Rove has been identified as the leaker responsible for the deaths of more than 70 CIA assets overseas
When Ambassador Wilson was asked how he knew it was Rove, he had documents in his possession identifying Rove as the leaker from a secret investigation of the State Department's Internal;
Charles good article I haven't heard that before. Thanks for bring it to my attention. You rock!!
Michael Bohannon 1080
09-07-2003 01:11 AM ET (US)
Wayne,
I think you're right. When a President implements extreme economic policies, there can be discernible effects. I guess its Reganomics all over again. In fact, maybe even more extreme than Regan. I was reading a book by one of Clinton's campaign advisors (not Carville) and he related how Dubya had even repealed a corporate tax retroactively that was initiated by none other than Ronald Regan himself. Bush is even more pro-business than Regan. I don't know much about the balance budget amendment that so many people are advocating, but on the surface it seems like a good idea. Yet, of course, the Devil is in the details.
09-07-2003 01:11 AM ET (US)
Wayne,
I think you're right. When a President implements extreme economic policies, there can be discernible effects. I guess its Reganomics all over again. In fact, maybe even more extreme than Regan. I was reading a book by one of Clinton's campaign advisors (not Carville) and he related how Dubya had even repealed a corporate tax retroactively that was initiated by none other than Ronald Regan himself. Bush is even more pro-business than Regan. I don't know much about the balance budget amendment that so many people are advocating, but on the surface it seems like a good idea. Yet, of course, the Devil is in the details.
Patti Ferschke 1081
09-07-2003 04:58 AM ET (US)
Charles Schumer is on this one and is probbing for an investigation on Rove.... we need to get the move-on folks on it too. Do write them as toghther we could have a huge impact on this issue to get the thugs....NOW ! I never hated anyone or ever said that before about anybody but this is treason ,and I hate that,and I'm ready to fight like hell ! We all need to call or e/m all the nets and 'bring on some pressure to do so ! I would love a "watershed" prior to elections
09-07-2003 04:58 AM ET (US)
Charles Schumer is on this one and is probbing for an investigation on Rove.... we need to get the move-on folks on it too. Do write them as toghther we could have a huge impact on this issue to get the thugs....NOW ! I never hated anyone or ever said that before about anybody but this is treason ,and I hate that,and I'm ready to fight like hell ! We all need to call or e/m all the nets and 'bring on some pressure to do so ! I would love a "watershed" prior to elections
Patti Ferschke 1082
09-07-2003 05:01 AM ET (US)
The PRES is always responsible to "we the people" for the economy..good or bad ! it's all about policy and the issues around the policy that make it right or wrong,and it IS his job to fix the ills surrounding the policy or politics !
09-07-2003 05:01 AM ET (US)
The PRES is always responsible to "we the people" for the economy..good or bad ! it's all about policy and the issues around the policy that make it right or wrong,and it IS his job to fix the ills surrounding the policy or politics !
Jennifer 1084
09-07-2003 12:18 PM ET (US)
President Bush Outlines Six Point Plan for the Economy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030904-5.html
President Bush on Friday said, "I'm optimistic about the future of this country. Yet today's unemployment report shows we've got more to do. And I'm not going to be satisfied until every American who's looking for a job can find a job."
09-07-2003 12:18 PM ET (US)
President Bush Outlines Six Point Plan for the Economy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030904-5.html
President Bush on Friday said, "I'm optimistic about the future of this country. Yet today's unemployment report shows we've got more to do. And I'm not going to be satisfied until every American who's looking for a job can find a job."
Charles in Montana 1085
09-07-2003 12:26 PM ET (US)
Patti, Moveon is a great idea. I'll spread that thought to the deaniacs, you hit the Kerry folks.
09-07-2003 12:26 PM ET (US)
Patti, Moveon is a great idea. I'll spread that thought to the deaniacs, you hit the Kerry folks.
Charles in Montana 1086
09-07-2003 12:28 PM ET (US)
Jennifer, Glad to see your concern for the people out of work. thanks
09-07-2003 12:28 PM ET (US)
Jennifer, Glad to see your concern for the people out of work. thanks
Ann Stewart 1087
09-07-2003 03:37 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-07-2003 03:40 PM
Dear Latino Community
I don’t know who is translating my site into Spanish, but please keep it up. I really would love to have my site translated to Spanish for the Latino community. It will also help me learn my Spanish better. I’m so happy that someone thought enough of my site to want to translate it. I checked the Spanish site today, and it looks like someone is changing it back to English. That makes me very sad. I really would love to have my site translated to Spanish. Please translate it for me. It helps me to learn Spanish better too.
There are also things on this site like the 2004 Election Debate, which I feel would be very educational for the Latino Community. Also updates on Dr. Gupta’s work would be educational too as well as updates on CNN and news information. So please keep translating. I don’t know who you are to send you a letter or a message, but if I did I would. This site is friendly and open to the general public anybody who wants to translate it to any language has my permission, and thank you so much for doing it.
Ann Stewart
Site Editor
And your online friend
09-07-2003 03:37 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-07-2003 03:40 PM
Dear Latino Community
I don’t know who is translating my site into Spanish, but please keep it up. I really would love to have my site translated to Spanish for the Latino community. It will also help me learn my Spanish better. I’m so happy that someone thought enough of my site to want to translate it. I checked the Spanish site today, and it looks like someone is changing it back to English. That makes me very sad. I really would love to have my site translated to Spanish. Please translate it for me. It helps me to learn Spanish better too.
There are also things on this site like the 2004 Election Debate, which I feel would be very educational for the Latino Community. Also updates on Dr. Gupta’s work would be educational too as well as updates on CNN and news information. So please keep translating. I don’t know who you are to send you a letter or a message, but if I did I would. This site is friendly and open to the general public anybody who wants to translate it to any language has my permission, and thank you so much for doing it.
Ann Stewart
Site Editor
And your online friend
Lysa 1088
09-07-2003 05:01 PM ET (US)
Ann, that is great news about the translation!
~~~
From the Dean blog on Rove
~~~
OT --- but CRITICAL to seeing Bush & Rove exit the White House!
Re: The Ambassador Wilson Affair -- by Jim in Berkeley
(posted by keith & Jim in Berkeley in a previous "Open Thread" blog)
Jim in Berkeley, thanks to you and keith both for bringing to light Karl Rove's destructive and murderous behavior with respect to Ambassador Wilson. I totally agree with you that this could be highly explosive news under the right circumstances. I have what I think could be a succesful plan to bring this matter to the attention of middle America.
Assuming you or others are serious about trying to spread news of this incredible story, here are some ways I suggest we attempt to get around the Media Blackout. This is for "hands-on" bloggers
who are OK with getting out in the streets, manning tables, making phone calls and generally mixing it up:
1) Make sure that Al Martin is a reputable journalist with solid credentials and not merely a counter-establishment gadfly of a commentator who, like Pat Buchanan, can be airily dismissed with the "anti-Semite," "racist," or "conspiracy kook" label.
This is essential --- to make sure that our source for this story is absolutely beyond reproach. In your reply to this post, maybe you can say more about why Al Martin should be listened to and taken seriously. What bad mistakes has he made in the past? How seriously is he taken by mainstream journalism?
The White House will *absolutely* try to take him down if he is the sole journalistic source of this story.
2) Form a privately-funded citizen's group such as "Support the Wilsons" or "Support Ambassador Wilson" or any other catchy name. This should be well organized (with Ambassador Wilson's assent) with professionally-printed letterhead on nice stationary, etc. A positive, professional impression should be made on any person of power or influence who receives mail from this hypothetical organization.
3) Steadily crank out letters to a "First Tier" of media publicity: political editors of weekly journals and community newspapers around the country, especially liberal/progressive newspapers that are not beholden to the same corporate agenda as the Big Eastern newspapers. (In Seattle, the "Seattle Weekly"; In San Francisco, "The Bay Guardian"; in Texas, the "Texas Observer," etc.)
After that, approach a "Second Tier": strong regional newspapers that are not owned by the NY Times/Washington Post/Wall St. Journal media complexes. At one point the San Jose Mercury in
California was such a newspaper. I'm not sure of its current status.
Places like Alaska, California, Washington and Oregon all seem like natural places to start a non-establishment media brushfire of inquiry into this issue.
4) Various Congressmen/women and Senators may or may not be interested depending on their individual temperament and political stances. We can strategically contact the right ones.
In WA, I'd say give Senator Patty Murray a shot (she's a scrappy, liberal fighter), but forget about Senator Maria Cantwell, who voted to give President Bush the authorization to wage war on Iraq.
5) Maybe we can work together with MoveOn.org on this issue, but we should not just dump it in their lap and expect things "to happen."
***************************
09-07-2003 05:01 PM ET (US)
Ann, that is great news about the translation!
~~~
From the Dean blog on Rove
~~~
OT --- but CRITICAL to seeing Bush & Rove exit the White House!
Re: The Ambassador Wilson Affair -- by Jim in Berkeley
(posted by keith & Jim in Berkeley in a previous "Open Thread" blog)
Jim in Berkeley, thanks to you and keith both for bringing to light Karl Rove's destructive and murderous behavior with respect to Ambassador Wilson. I totally agree with you that this could be highly explosive news under the right circumstances. I have what I think could be a succesful plan to bring this matter to the attention of middle America.
Assuming you or others are serious about trying to spread news of this incredible story, here are some ways I suggest we attempt to get around the Media Blackout. This is for "hands-on" bloggers
who are OK with getting out in the streets, manning tables, making phone calls and generally mixing it up:
1) Make sure that Al Martin is a reputable journalist with solid credentials and not merely a counter-establishment gadfly of a commentator who, like Pat Buchanan, can be airily dismissed with the "anti-Semite," "racist," or "conspiracy kook" label.
This is essential --- to make sure that our source for this story is absolutely beyond reproach. In your reply to this post, maybe you can say more about why Al Martin should be listened to and taken seriously. What bad mistakes has he made in the past? How seriously is he taken by mainstream journalism?
The White House will *absolutely* try to take him down if he is the sole journalistic source of this story.
2) Form a privately-funded citizen's group such as "Support the Wilsons" or "Support Ambassador Wilson" or any other catchy name. This should be well organized (with Ambassador Wilson's assent) with professionally-printed letterhead on nice stationary, etc. A positive, professional impression should be made on any person of power or influence who receives mail from this hypothetical organization.
3) Steadily crank out letters to a "First Tier" of media publicity: political editors of weekly journals and community newspapers around the country, especially liberal/progressive newspapers that are not beholden to the same corporate agenda as the Big Eastern newspapers. (In Seattle, the "Seattle Weekly"; In San Francisco, "The Bay Guardian"; in Texas, the "Texas Observer," etc.)
After that, approach a "Second Tier": strong regional newspapers that are not owned by the NY Times/Washington Post/Wall St. Journal media complexes. At one point the San Jose Mercury in
California was such a newspaper. I'm not sure of its current status.
Places like Alaska, California, Washington and Oregon all seem like natural places to start a non-establishment media brushfire of inquiry into this issue.
4) Various Congressmen/women and Senators may or may not be interested depending on their individual temperament and political stances. We can strategically contact the right ones.
In WA, I'd say give Senator Patty Murray a shot (she's a scrappy, liberal fighter), but forget about Senator Maria Cantwell, who voted to give President Bush the authorization to wage war on Iraq.
5) Maybe we can work together with MoveOn.org on this issue, but we should not just dump it in their lap and expect things "to happen."
***************************
Patti Ferschke 1089
09-07-2003 05:39 PM ET (US)
Jennifer, if you think for one minute that what BUSH has put out there to you my dear, do what you will and that is to follow this idiot blindly. He could tell you that black is white and you'd believe it ! He's still that guy that says one thing and does another. His plan is wrong for America and any of his followers,commit treason to this country !.. I wish you well when the next SARS scare comes about,and each dis-ease to follow will be more pervasive that the last....good luck and good health !
09-07-2003 05:39 PM ET (US)
Jennifer, if you think for one minute that what BUSH has put out there to you my dear, do what you will and that is to follow this idiot blindly. He could tell you that black is white and you'd believe it ! He's still that guy that says one thing and does another. His plan is wrong for America and any of his followers,commit treason to this country !.. I wish you well when the next SARS scare comes about,and each dis-ease to follow will be more pervasive that the last....good luck and good health !
Roger Dale 1090
09-07-2003 06:34 PM ET (US)
I just wanted to stop in and say***I know it has been talked about in the past that we may be for blowing up abortion clincs***I just want to say that is not true***this man that recently blew up clincs and killed people well,that is wrong***Our Rev. spoke on this at church today***he said man claimed to be Catholic***Our good Rev. father spoke today on how wrong this was***Catholics do not beleive in this evil behavoir***that's all I have to say***thank you***may God Bless You***keep the lord there
09-07-2003 06:34 PM ET (US)
I just wanted to stop in and say***I know it has been talked about in the past that we may be for blowing up abortion clincs***I just want to say that is not true***this man that recently blew up clincs and killed people well,that is wrong***Our Rev. spoke on this at church today***he said man claimed to be Catholic***Our good Rev. father spoke today on how wrong this was***Catholics do not beleive in this evil behavoir***that's all I have to say***thank you***may God Bless You***keep the lord there
Charles in Montana 1091
09-07-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)
Hey guys, I really had a political eye opener today. I may change from spending my time backing Dean to backing a great contender in Cal. I think the candidate can beat Arnold. http:/www.marycareyforgovernor.com
09-07-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)
Hey guys, I really had a political eye opener today. I may change from spending my time backing Dean to backing a great contender in Cal. I think the candidate can beat Arnold. http:/www.marycareyforgovernor.com
Charles in Montana 1092
09-07-2003 08:29 PM ET (US)
I can't post anything right today. http://marycareyforgovernor.com
09-07-2003 08:29 PM ET (US)
I can't post anything right today. http://marycareyforgovernor.com
Ann Stewart 1093
09-07-2003 09:30 PM ET (US)
We still love you Charles.
Patti,Lysa,Roger...welcome folks. Glad you all came in today.
09-07-2003 09:30 PM ET (US)
We still love you Charles.
Patti,Lysa,Roger...welcome folks. Glad you all came in today.
Lysa 1094
09-07-2003 09:37 PM ET (US)
Charles the first link you posted worked. Normally I have to copy and paste links here because if I don't they have this prior in the site address
http://www.quicktopic.com/cgi-bin/post.cgi?link=html
Mary Carey, Only in California, movie stars and porn queens and kings running for gov!
09-07-2003 09:37 PM ET (US)
Charles the first link you posted worked. Normally I have to copy and paste links here because if I don't they have this prior in the site address
http://www.quicktopic.com/cgi-bin/post.cgi?link=html
Mary Carey, Only in California, movie stars and porn queens and kings running for gov!
Lee P 1095
09-08-2003 01:16 PM ET (US)
I was watching Pres. Bush give a serman last night. He was saying now we libarated Iraq, not because of WMD's, Not Because of Saddam's Bad Regeime, now we liberated them because of terrorism. Next his excuse will be, we liberated them because we don't like sand. He Keeps coming up with all these different excusses.
09-08-2003 01:16 PM ET (US)
I was watching Pres. Bush give a serman last night. He was saying now we libarated Iraq, not because of WMD's, Not Because of Saddam's Bad Regeime, now we liberated them because of terrorism. Next his excuse will be, we liberated them because we don't like sand. He Keeps coming up with all these different excusses.
Ann Stewart 1096
09-08-2003 01:30 PM ET (US)
Lee
President Bush is here in Nashville today. He visited a Elemetary School this morning and at 2:00pm he will be giving a fund raising speech at Lowes Vanderbilt Hotel. Metro Police are blocking off traffic from 21st to West End. Traffic is bad down town. I just got in from it. I just left Lowes Vanderbilt Hotel. The employees said it is not open to the public, but I just talked to News Ch. 4 who is also at Vandy right now, and they will be covering President Bush's Speech. So flip on the tube. Secret Service is controling the entire hotel, and security is tight. I went in to see if I could listen in on the President's speech and they told me no one is allowed in. I guess he is fund raising here in Nashville because he expects to win Tennessee. I bet he figures he'll get a lot of support here too. You know he beat Gore in his own state last election. Boy that made Gore look bad.
09-08-2003 01:30 PM ET (US)
Lee
President Bush is here in Nashville today. He visited a Elemetary School this morning and at 2:00pm he will be giving a fund raising speech at Lowes Vanderbilt Hotel. Metro Police are blocking off traffic from 21st to West End. Traffic is bad down town. I just got in from it. I just left Lowes Vanderbilt Hotel. The employees said it is not open to the public, but I just talked to News Ch. 4 who is also at Vandy right now, and they will be covering President Bush's Speech. So flip on the tube. Secret Service is controling the entire hotel, and security is tight. I went in to see if I could listen in on the President's speech and they told me no one is allowed in. I guess he is fund raising here in Nashville because he expects to win Tennessee. I bet he figures he'll get a lot of support here too. You know he beat Gore in his own state last election. Boy that made Gore look bad.
Ann Stewart 1097
09-08-2003 01:37 PM ET (US)
By the way for anybody leaving work today. Don't get caught in those meto block offs down town on 21st, Charolette and West End. I was told Metro will be blocking off most of that area of Traffic for the President's arrival. So aviod that area on your way home if you can.
09-08-2003 01:37 PM ET (US)
By the way for anybody leaving work today. Don't get caught in those meto block offs down town on 21st, Charolette and West End. I was told Metro will be blocking off most of that area of Traffic for the President's arrival. So aviod that area on your way home if you can.
Stewart 1098
09-08-2003 02:40 PM ET (US)
Monday, September 08, 2003
President Bush Comes To Nashville
The President is visiting Nashville, TN today. Some people said he is doing this as a fundraiser for the upcoming 2004 Election. It has been stated Bush is expected to win Tennessee in the next race for the Whitehouse. Here online at the 2004 Election Debate. Jennifer Lynne, Mike D., Roger Dale and Becky B. have shown strong support for President Bush. All of these folks live in the Nashville area, so I will say there is some proof of support for Bush here in the state of Tennessee. If you remember back to the last Election, Bush won Tennessee by a landside against Gore who was once our governor. That made Gore look pretty bad in the last Election. Tennessee is still looking like a Bush loving state. Maybe that is why President Bush doesn’t seem to mind coming to Tennessee. President Bush was said to have visited a Nashville Elementary School this morning. I think for security reason they may not have stated which one, but he will also be giving a speech at the Lowe’s Hotel at Vanderbilt on West End street in downtown Nashville at 2:00pm CT.
09-08-2003 02:40 PM ET (US)
Monday, September 08, 2003
President Bush Comes To Nashville
The President is visiting Nashville, TN today. Some people said he is doing this as a fundraiser for the upcoming 2004 Election. It has been stated Bush is expected to win Tennessee in the next race for the Whitehouse. Here online at the 2004 Election Debate. Jennifer Lynne, Mike D., Roger Dale and Becky B. have shown strong support for President Bush. All of these folks live in the Nashville area, so I will say there is some proof of support for Bush here in the state of Tennessee. If you remember back to the last Election, Bush won Tennessee by a landside against Gore who was once our governor. That made Gore look pretty bad in the last Election. Tennessee is still looking like a Bush loving state. Maybe that is why President Bush doesn’t seem to mind coming to Tennessee. President Bush was said to have visited a Nashville Elementary School this morning. I think for security reason they may not have stated which one, but he will also be giving a speech at the Lowe’s Hotel at Vanderbilt on West End street in downtown Nashville at 2:00pm CT.
Ann Stewart 1099
09-08-2003 04:07 PM ET (US)
Today Bush was in Nashville at the Kirkpatrick Elementary School giving a speech on how effective the “Leave no Child Behind” program has been. How many of you believe the program is effective?
09-08-2003 04:07 PM ET (US)
Today Bush was in Nashville at the Kirkpatrick Elementary School giving a speech on how effective the “Leave no Child Behind” program has been. How many of you believe the program is effective?
Ann Stewart 1100
09-08-2003 04:17 PM ET (US)
TODAY’S NEWS HEADLINES:
* Bush requests $87 billion for wars in Afghanistan & Iraq
09-08-2003 04:17 PM ET (US)
TODAY’S NEWS HEADLINES:
* Bush requests $87 billion for wars in Afghanistan & Iraq
Lysa 1101
09-08-2003 05:30 PM ET (US)
I have yet to hear a teacher come out and say the Leave No Child Behind program is effective.
Many of my friends are teachers. Testing to them is not effective when it comes to teaching. All of the teachers I know in the pre college level are forced to buy their own supplies out of their own pockets if they want to do anything to benefit their teaching abilities. Special education teachers are particularly hard pressed. Silly stuff like crayons, paper, even copies as many schools limit the amount of copies a teacher can make on school copiers.
Bush is an idiot. He went to Yale and I have little doubt he was able to get in via his connections as well as little doubt his C grade was also due to connections. If it weren't for Laura in his life there would be no books at his home, unless they were Audio books. Books to bush are props, just like everything else in his life. No Substance, no Meaning, just like the person.
09-08-2003 05:30 PM ET (US)
I have yet to hear a teacher come out and say the Leave No Child Behind program is effective.
Many of my friends are teachers. Testing to them is not effective when it comes to teaching. All of the teachers I know in the pre college level are forced to buy their own supplies out of their own pockets if they want to do anything to benefit their teaching abilities. Special education teachers are particularly hard pressed. Silly stuff like crayons, paper, even copies as many schools limit the amount of copies a teacher can make on school copiers.
Bush is an idiot. He went to Yale and I have little doubt he was able to get in via his connections as well as little doubt his C grade was also due to connections. If it weren't for Laura in his life there would be no books at his home, unless they were Audio books. Books to bush are props, just like everything else in his life. No Substance, no Meaning, just like the person.
Wayne in Missouri 1103
09-08-2003 11:25 PM ET (US)
The No Child Left Behind Act is another of many of Bush's UNFUNDED MANDATES.
An UNFUNDED MANDATE is when the federal government places requirements on the states but does not pay for the requirements so that the states have to find a way to raise the money themselves.
In New Hampshire, for instance, following the mandate will cost the taxpayers up to 109 million dollars but it will have to come out of state and local property taxes because the federal government isn't ponying up the cash.
I find it amazing that Bush has used unfunded mandates as a gimmick to pass the tax burden for federal programs onto the states and localities and he still has us 500 billion in debt. Imagine how bad the debt would be if he didn't pass the buck to states on so many unfunded mandates.
By the way, many of Bush's Homeland Security mandates are also unfunded mandates.
09-08-2003 11:25 PM ET (US)
The No Child Left Behind Act is another of many of Bush's UNFUNDED MANDATES.
An UNFUNDED MANDATE is when the federal government places requirements on the states but does not pay for the requirements so that the states have to find a way to raise the money themselves.
In New Hampshire, for instance, following the mandate will cost the taxpayers up to 109 million dollars but it will have to come out of state and local property taxes because the federal government isn't ponying up the cash.
I find it amazing that Bush has used unfunded mandates as a gimmick to pass the tax burden for federal programs onto the states and localities and he still has us 500 billion in debt. Imagine how bad the debt would be if he didn't pass the buck to states on so many unfunded mandates.
By the way, many of Bush's Homeland Security mandates are also unfunded mandates.
Charles in Montana 1104
09-08-2003 11:47 PM ET (US)
Lee, Loved your post, blame it on the sand. I would not put it past that dumb s.o.b...... He is striking out with the Eropeans on getting some Help! Help! Help! but every thing is under control. If only the Germans would chip in a little after the neocons belittled them and France. If I were Chancellor Schoder, I'd send Bush bratwurst, bad bratwurst, then ask him to kiss my ass. So where does this leave our troops? These neocons are as good at burning bridges as they are bombing defenseless civilians.
09-08-2003 11:47 PM ET (US)
Lee, Loved your post, blame it on the sand. I would not put it past that dumb s.o.b...... He is striking out with the Eropeans on getting some Help! Help! Help! but every thing is under control. If only the Germans would chip in a little after the neocons belittled them and France. If I were Chancellor Schoder, I'd send Bush bratwurst, bad bratwurst, then ask him to kiss my ass. So where does this leave our troops? These neocons are as good at burning bridges as they are bombing defenseless civilians.
Jennifer 1105
09-09-2003 12:05 AM ET (US)
Wayne unfunded mandates? Please, Bush is putting the money where it counts on our childrens education. You can not sit there and say that eduction in our schools have not improved since Bush put out these wonderful programs like "Leave No Child Behind" This is just more Bad Bush Bashing, and so tipical of you guys.
09-09-2003 12:05 AM ET (US)
Wayne unfunded mandates? Please, Bush is putting the money where it counts on our childrens education. You can not sit there and say that eduction in our schools have not improved since Bush put out these wonderful programs like "Leave No Child Behind" This is just more Bad Bush Bashing, and so tipical of you guys.
doug in indiana 1106
09-09-2003 12:49 AM ET (US)
Want Lower Taxes? Move to Alabama!
For a great example of the many benefits of low taxes, look no further than Alabama! Lowest taxes in the nation (though extraordinarily regressive - they make those lazy bums making only $5000 pay income tax!), and - surprise! - lowest reading scores in the nation too!
They're considering releasing 5,000 felons because they can't pay for their prisons.
Despite having the lowest per-pupil expenditure on education, they're going to have to cut the textbook and school supply budget.
Great stuff eh!? Thank god those lazy poor people aren't taking much of the rich's hard earned money!
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http...l/06TAXE.html&OQ=hp
If this doesn't refute your bullheaded insistence on low taxes = good policy, I don't know what does. What is happening in Alabama is exactly what Bush wants to happen to the rest of the country. Except he's pulled out his future-generations credit card and created the illusion of solvency by exploding the national debt. Won't we all be better off when Granny stops burdening the rich with her pesky prescriptions
09-09-2003 12:49 AM ET (US)
Want Lower Taxes? Move to Alabama!
For a great example of the many benefits of low taxes, look no further than Alabama! Lowest taxes in the nation (though extraordinarily regressive - they make those lazy bums making only $5000 pay income tax!), and - surprise! - lowest reading scores in the nation too!
They're considering releasing 5,000 felons because they can't pay for their prisons.
Despite having the lowest per-pupil expenditure on education, they're going to have to cut the textbook and school supply budget.
Great stuff eh!? Thank god those lazy poor people aren't taking much of the rich's hard earned money!
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http...l/06TAXE.html&OQ=hp
If this doesn't refute your bullheaded insistence on low taxes = good policy, I don't know what does. What is happening in Alabama is exactly what Bush wants to happen to the rest of the country. Except he's pulled out his future-generations credit card and created the illusion of solvency by exploding the national debt. Won't we all be better off when Granny stops burdening the rich with her pesky prescriptions
Wayne in Missouri 1107
09-09-2003 12:55 AM ET (US)
Jennifer,
Do you understand what the word "unfunded" means? It means Bush hasn't put HIS money where his mouth is. He has made the states and local school boards put THEIR money where his mouth is.
I don't think you understand what an unfunded mandate is.
I think you missed the point. He is mandating that money be spent, but is not providing the money.
An unfunded mandate would be if I required you by law to put a new roof on your house but then didn't provide you the 5,000 dollars it would cost to put a new roof on your house. You would then be required by MY law to spend 5,000 dolars of YOUR money. A funded mandate would be if I required you to put a new roof on your house and actually gave you the money to do it.
Bush's no child left behind policy is an unfunded mandate.
09-09-2003 12:55 AM ET (US)
Jennifer,
Do you understand what the word "unfunded" means? It means Bush hasn't put HIS money where his mouth is. He has made the states and local school boards put THEIR money where his mouth is.
I don't think you understand what an unfunded mandate is.
I think you missed the point. He is mandating that money be spent, but is not providing the money.
An unfunded mandate would be if I required you by law to put a new roof on your house but then didn't provide you the 5,000 dollars it would cost to put a new roof on your house. You would then be required by MY law to spend 5,000 dolars of YOUR money. A funded mandate would be if I required you to put a new roof on your house and actually gave you the money to do it.
Bush's no child left behind policy is an unfunded mandate.
Keith Brekhus 1108
09-09-2003 12:55 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 12:55 AM
An Unfunded Mandate is a requirement imposed by the federal government on state or local governments with NO FUNDING to pay for it.
Bush isn't putting the money where it counts, because he isn't providing the money--he is forcing the states and localities to pay for his federal program.
09-09-2003 12:55 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 12:55 AM
An Unfunded Mandate is a requirement imposed by the federal government on state or local governments with NO FUNDING to pay for it.
Bush isn't putting the money where it counts, because he isn't providing the money--he is forcing the states and localities to pay for his federal program.
doug in indiana 1109
09-09-2003 12:57 AM ET (US)
Most states lag far behind 'No Child Left Behind' law
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
One year after President Bush signed the sweeping "No Child Left Behind" education bill into law, states are rolling out ambitious testing programs, improving teacher quality, developing excruciatingly detailed report cards — and struggling to make it all work.
Only 12 states are on track to comply with even half of the major federal requirements, according to a report scheduled for release today by the independent Education Commission of the States. Though states have a few years to meet some of the requirements, many were already due.
In the first detailed look at how all 50 states and the District of Columbia are grappling with the complex law, ECS found that many have a long way to go.
The core of the law is a 12-year plan to improve the basic skills of the nation's 47 million public school students. States face an important deadline on Friday, when they must tell the federal government how they'll integrate No Child Left Behind into their testing systems. Those that fail to comply with the law ultimately risk losing federal money for their schools.
U.S. Education Department spokesman Dan Langan says states "are indeed making progress" and are probably further along than the ECS findings suggest. "What you see today may not be the same tomorrow, because of a change in a state policy or program."
As they face shrinking state budgets, many local lawmakers and education officials are complaining that the federal government is saddling schools with dozens of new requirements without providing enough extra money to get the job done.
"There are a lot of good ideas in there," says New Hampshire state Rep. John Alger, a Republican. "If they're not going to pay the whole shot, that's not fair."
Alger plans to introduce a bill next month that would prohibit New Hampshire from spending a single dime on No Child Left Behind because the state's constitution prohibits lawmakers from passing unfunded mandates on to local governments.
And several other states aren't exactly exuberant, either.
"Some are more enthusiastic about No Child Left Behind than others," says Kathy Christie of the ECS Information Clearinghouse, which produced the report with a $2 million grant from the education department. Christie says the Web-based report is designed to help states see where they stand and find ways to work together to implement the law.
Among the results so far:
Of the 40 federal requirements examined by ECS, 12 states are close to fulfilling half or more. Among the furthest along: Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas, which have met or nearly met 24 requirements, and North Carolina with 26. Among those lagging furthest behind: Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oregon, which are on track with only three each.
Thirty-nine states are developing accountability systems, but fewer than half are even close to figuring out how to assess or improve the test scores of children in every subgroup, such as low-income, minority and disabled kids.
Every state is at least partly on track to have required math, reading and science standards in place over the next two years, as well as actual tests in reading and math.
Forty states are working to identify schools with consistently poor test scores, where students must be offered tutoring or transportation to another public school; 28 states have a list of approved tutors, and 20 actually are offering tutoring. Only 25 are ready to offer transfers, which were to have begun last fall in the 48 states with underperforming schools.
Only five states — California, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana and Ohio — have developed policies by which students in "persistently dangerous schools" can transfer to another school. States were required to begin allowing the transfers last fall.
Ten states have defined what "highly qualified teachers" are, but only eight are close to having them in their classrooms, and only Wisconsin says it has a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Under No Child Left Behind, all new teachers in schools serving mostly poor students were to have been "highly qualified" last fall. All teachers in all schools must meet the same criteria by spring 2006.
The law requires that all teachers be trained in the subjects they teach. Research has shown that about one in four high school and middle-school classes in core subjects are taught by a teacher not trained in the subject. The problem is worse in schools that serve poor and minority students.
The result of a rare bipartisan effort by Congress and President Bush to improve basic skills among public school students, No Child Left Behind already is being felt in the nation's classrooms.
Last fall, thousands of schools with low test scores had to begin offering students extra help or free rides to another public school, and principals had to send home notes to families whose children were being taught by a teacher not certified to teach a particular course.
Many educators say the law, combined with a decade of testing in most states, has encouraged basic academics while helping new teachers to figure out what's essential and old teachers to remember why they're in the classroom. The plan also has made education reform a top domestic priority.
"Everybody is talking about achievement gaps, everybody is talking about how we get kids to high standards, and that's a real sea change," says Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, a Washington group that advocates for poor and urban students.
Worried about so many tests
But some teachers say the law, with its emphasis on testing, is hijacking their lesson plans.
"We're giving so many more assessments than we've ever given before," says Stacey Cole, a fourth-grade teacher at West Elementary School in Storm Lake, Iowa. "It feels like we're always preparing for another test."
Recalling the old saw about education being like raising a cow, she says, "It just seems like we keep weighing the cow, and we don't have any time to feed the cow."
Her boss, principal Juli Kwikkel, notes that even if test scores improve throughout Iowa, the requirements of the Bush plan could categorize more than half of all Iowa public schools as "failing," generally because the test scores of students in every subgroup aren't likely to improve every year.
"We're talking Iowa, with the highest literacy rate in the country," she says. "It's just nuts."
Cole, 28, who has taught for seven years, is considering another career in the face of all those tests. She was disappointed last fall to learn from her new pupils that, for the first time, they didn't have a chance as third-graders to try their hands at a science project that has been a perennial favorite.
"We don't have 20 minutes anymore to build a volcano, and that's really, in essence, what sticks curriculum into their brains, the hands-on activities," she says. "Now the volcano's gone."
With its requirements that schools hire only "highly qualified" teachers, as well as develop and give reading, math and science tests to every child in third through eighth grade, No Child Left Behind also is setting state lawmakers' teeth on edge. A few are beginning to question openly whether the ambitious plan is workable.
"Certainly any legislator in the country would say 'Amen' to the idea that we want every child to do well in school," says Nebraska Sen. Pam Redfield. "But at the same time, it's going to be difficult for us to come up with the wherewithal to finance this within the time frame that's required."
Education accounts for about 35% of the general fund in most states, and state legislatures provide, on average, about half of most school districts' money; the federal government provides about 7%.
But just as the sluggish economy has hit consumers hard, it also has hit states: 17 cut their budgets for kindergarten through 12th grade last year; 12 have done the same or are planning to do so this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"Before it's over, I think we'll see a lot more states cutting their K-12 education budgets," says David Shreve, the group's senior committee director for education and labor.
Bush has touted a huge increase in aid for schools to implement the plan, including more than $1 billion annually for a new elementary school reading program. But many critics, noting that the federal government has never lived up to its long-standing promise to pay 40% of the bill for educating disabled students, remain skeptical.
Congress authorized $16 billion this year for aid to schools attended by mostly poor students, the major recipients of No Child Left Behind programs. But Bush has proposed $11.3 billion.
A recent study by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association estimated that even with the increases, Bush's plan will give New Hampshire schools only $77 for every student, while costing the state $575 a student to implement.
Not surprisingly, Nebraska and New Hampshire are among the states that have moved slowest on No Child Left Behind.
Worried about local control
Funding concerns aside, many observers worry about the loss of local control of schools, because teachers in each grade must soon begin giving — and presumably preparing for — the same tests statewide.
Also, each state must consent to giving select fourth- and eighth-graders the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," each year. While poor NAEP scores can't be used to punish schools, federal officials have openly said the embarrassment of low scores will likely nudge states into demanding changes in schools.
"I am amazed that this Republican administration would be promoting such legislation that is really invasive into the local control process — much more than any other federal program I've seen come down the pike," says Dean Michener of the New Hampshire School Boards Association.
In Nebraska, Redfield and others have asked that the U.S. Education Department let the state hold off on math tests until later grades, but the federal government has refused. The state and federal government are discussing a proposal to allow school districts to choose from one of several skills tests each year, depending on when they teach specific skills to their students.
Worried about funding
State lawmakers and educators also fear that the push to get all children learning at the same level will bring more legal challenges to school funding formulas. Families in low-income districts can easily make the case that their poorly financed schools are set up to fail under the new requirements.
"As the society has become more unequal over the last 20 years, the various education reform measures (have) set up more and more hoops for young people to jump through," says Dave Stratman, former Washington director of the National PTA, who is now an organizer for MassRefusal, a group of teachers' union leaders fighting against high-stakes testing in Massachusetts.
"It raises the bar while not providing the support for them to succeed," he says.
In Massachusetts, Stratman notes, hundreds of teachers are being laid off "at the same time the schools and the kids are being expected to perform miracles."
Tony Harduar, principal of Central Elementary School in Ferndale, Wash., 80 miles north of Seattle, says he is willing to be patient with the Bush plan.
"I don't think No Child Left Behind is playing out fully yet," he says. But Harduar says it's making it hard for him to find qualified teacher aides. The plan requires that both teachers and aides be "highly qualified" in their subject areas, but Harduar says he already has hired three people who since found better-paying jobs.
Kwikkel has had the same problem. She says many people applying for the aide jobs don't have the required college degree or 90 hours of training, and they can't be bothered with the required skills test.
"Why go through this when you can go over and work at McDonald's and make more money per hour?"
The interactive report, which features detailed breakdowns of how far along each state is on 40 measures, will be accessible online at www.ecs.org.
09-09-2003 12:57 AM ET (US)
Most states lag far behind 'No Child Left Behind' law
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
One year after President Bush signed the sweeping "No Child Left Behind" education bill into law, states are rolling out ambitious testing programs, improving teacher quality, developing excruciatingly detailed report cards — and struggling to make it all work.
Only 12 states are on track to comply with even half of the major federal requirements, according to a report scheduled for release today by the independent Education Commission of the States. Though states have a few years to meet some of the requirements, many were already due.
In the first detailed look at how all 50 states and the District of Columbia are grappling with the complex law, ECS found that many have a long way to go.
The core of the law is a 12-year plan to improve the basic skills of the nation's 47 million public school students. States face an important deadline on Friday, when they must tell the federal government how they'll integrate No Child Left Behind into their testing systems. Those that fail to comply with the law ultimately risk losing federal money for their schools.
U.S. Education Department spokesman Dan Langan says states "are indeed making progress" and are probably further along than the ECS findings suggest. "What you see today may not be the same tomorrow, because of a change in a state policy or program."
As they face shrinking state budgets, many local lawmakers and education officials are complaining that the federal government is saddling schools with dozens of new requirements without providing enough extra money to get the job done.
"There are a lot of good ideas in there," says New Hampshire state Rep. John Alger, a Republican. "If they're not going to pay the whole shot, that's not fair."
Alger plans to introduce a bill next month that would prohibit New Hampshire from spending a single dime on No Child Left Behind because the state's constitution prohibits lawmakers from passing unfunded mandates on to local governments.
And several other states aren't exactly exuberant, either.
"Some are more enthusiastic about No Child Left Behind than others," says Kathy Christie of the ECS Information Clearinghouse, which produced the report with a $2 million grant from the education department. Christie says the Web-based report is designed to help states see where they stand and find ways to work together to implement the law.
Among the results so far:
Of the 40 federal requirements examined by ECS, 12 states are close to fulfilling half or more. Among the furthest along: Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas, which have met or nearly met 24 requirements, and North Carolina with 26. Among those lagging furthest behind: Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oregon, which are on track with only three each.
Thirty-nine states are developing accountability systems, but fewer than half are even close to figuring out how to assess or improve the test scores of children in every subgroup, such as low-income, minority and disabled kids.
Every state is at least partly on track to have required math, reading and science standards in place over the next two years, as well as actual tests in reading and math.
Forty states are working to identify schools with consistently poor test scores, where students must be offered tutoring or transportation to another public school; 28 states have a list of approved tutors, and 20 actually are offering tutoring. Only 25 are ready to offer transfers, which were to have begun last fall in the 48 states with underperforming schools.
Only five states — California, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana and Ohio — have developed policies by which students in "persistently dangerous schools" can transfer to another school. States were required to begin allowing the transfers last fall.
Ten states have defined what "highly qualified teachers" are, but only eight are close to having them in their classrooms, and only Wisconsin says it has a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Under No Child Left Behind, all new teachers in schools serving mostly poor students were to have been "highly qualified" last fall. All teachers in all schools must meet the same criteria by spring 2006.
The law requires that all teachers be trained in the subjects they teach. Research has shown that about one in four high school and middle-school classes in core subjects are taught by a teacher not trained in the subject. The problem is worse in schools that serve poor and minority students.
The result of a rare bipartisan effort by Congress and President Bush to improve basic skills among public school students, No Child Left Behind already is being felt in the nation's classrooms.
Last fall, thousands of schools with low test scores had to begin offering students extra help or free rides to another public school, and principals had to send home notes to families whose children were being taught by a teacher not certified to teach a particular course.
Many educators say the law, combined with a decade of testing in most states, has encouraged basic academics while helping new teachers to figure out what's essential and old teachers to remember why they're in the classroom. The plan also has made education reform a top domestic priority.
"Everybody is talking about achievement gaps, everybody is talking about how we get kids to high standards, and that's a real sea change," says Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, a Washington group that advocates for poor and urban students.
Worried about so many tests
But some teachers say the law, with its emphasis on testing, is hijacking their lesson plans.
"We're giving so many more assessments than we've ever given before," says Stacey Cole, a fourth-grade teacher at West Elementary School in Storm Lake, Iowa. "It feels like we're always preparing for another test."
Recalling the old saw about education being like raising a cow, she says, "It just seems like we keep weighing the cow, and we don't have any time to feed the cow."
Her boss, principal Juli Kwikkel, notes that even if test scores improve throughout Iowa, the requirements of the Bush plan could categorize more than half of all Iowa public schools as "failing," generally because the test scores of students in every subgroup aren't likely to improve every year.
"We're talking Iowa, with the highest literacy rate in the country," she says. "It's just nuts."
Cole, 28, who has taught for seven years, is considering another career in the face of all those tests. She was disappointed last fall to learn from her new pupils that, for the first time, they didn't have a chance as third-graders to try their hands at a science project that has been a perennial favorite.
"We don't have 20 minutes anymore to build a volcano, and that's really, in essence, what sticks curriculum into their brains, the hands-on activities," she says. "Now the volcano's gone."
With its requirements that schools hire only "highly qualified" teachers, as well as develop and give reading, math and science tests to every child in third through eighth grade, No Child Left Behind also is setting state lawmakers' teeth on edge. A few are beginning to question openly whether the ambitious plan is workable.
"Certainly any legislator in the country would say 'Amen' to the idea that we want every child to do well in school," says Nebraska Sen. Pam Redfield. "But at the same time, it's going to be difficult for us to come up with the wherewithal to finance this within the time frame that's required."
Education accounts for about 35% of the general fund in most states, and state legislatures provide, on average, about half of most school districts' money; the federal government provides about 7%.
But just as the sluggish economy has hit consumers hard, it also has hit states: 17 cut their budgets for kindergarten through 12th grade last year; 12 have done the same or are planning to do so this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"Before it's over, I think we'll see a lot more states cutting their K-12 education budgets," says David Shreve, the group's senior committee director for education and labor.
Bush has touted a huge increase in aid for schools to implement the plan, including more than $1 billion annually for a new elementary school reading program. But many critics, noting that the federal government has never lived up to its long-standing promise to pay 40% of the bill for educating disabled students, remain skeptical.
Congress authorized $16 billion this year for aid to schools attended by mostly poor students, the major recipients of No Child Left Behind programs. But Bush has proposed $11.3 billion.
A recent study by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association estimated that even with the increases, Bush's plan will give New Hampshire schools only $77 for every student, while costing the state $575 a student to implement.
Not surprisingly, Nebraska and New Hampshire are among the states that have moved slowest on No Child Left Behind.
Worried about local control
Funding concerns aside, many observers worry about the loss of local control of schools, because teachers in each grade must soon begin giving — and presumably preparing for — the same tests statewide.
Also, each state must consent to giving select fourth- and eighth-graders the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," each year. While poor NAEP scores can't be used to punish schools, federal officials have openly said the embarrassment of low scores will likely nudge states into demanding changes in schools.
"I am amazed that this Republican administration would be promoting such legislation that is really invasive into the local control process — much more than any other federal program I've seen come down the pike," says Dean Michener of the New Hampshire School Boards Association.
In Nebraska, Redfield and others have asked that the U.S. Education Department let the state hold off on math tests until later grades, but the federal government has refused. The state and federal government are discussing a proposal to allow school districts to choose from one of several skills tests each year, depending on when they teach specific skills to their students.
Worried about funding
State lawmakers and educators also fear that the push to get all children learning at the same level will bring more legal challenges to school funding formulas. Families in low-income districts can easily make the case that their poorly financed schools are set up to fail under the new requirements.
"As the society has become more unequal over the last 20 years, the various education reform measures (have) set up more and more hoops for young people to jump through," says Dave Stratman, former Washington director of the National PTA, who is now an organizer for MassRefusal, a group of teachers' union leaders fighting against high-stakes testing in Massachusetts.
"It raises the bar while not providing the support for them to succeed," he says.
In Massachusetts, Stratman notes, hundreds of teachers are being laid off "at the same time the schools and the kids are being expected to perform miracles."
Tony Harduar, principal of Central Elementary School in Ferndale, Wash., 80 miles north of Seattle, says he is willing to be patient with the Bush plan.
"I don't think No Child Left Behind is playing out fully yet," he says. But Harduar says it's making it hard for him to find qualified teacher aides. The plan requires that both teachers and aides be "highly qualified" in their subject areas, but Harduar says he already has hired three people who since found better-paying jobs.
Kwikkel has had the same problem. She says many people applying for the aide jobs don't have the required college degree or 90 hours of training, and they can't be bothered with the required skills test.
"Why go through this when you can go over and work at McDonald's and make more money per hour?"
The interactive report, which features detailed breakdowns of how far along each state is on 40 measures, will be accessible online at www.ecs.org.
Keith Brekhus 1110
09-09-2003 01:03 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 01:04 AM
This is how Bush funds education...he takes 575 dollars out of each child's pocket and then provides them with 77 dollars. In other words, he is taking 498 dollars away from each child's education. When it comes to robbing our children, Bush will leave no child behind.
"Bush's plan will give New Hampshire schools only $77 for every student, while costing the state $575 a student to implement".
09-09-2003 01:03 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 01:04 AM
This is how Bush funds education...he takes 575 dollars out of each child's pocket and then provides them with 77 dollars. In other words, he is taking 498 dollars away from each child's education. When it comes to robbing our children, Bush will leave no child behind.
"Bush's plan will give New Hampshire schools only $77 for every student, while costing the state $575 a student to implement".
Ann Stewart 1111
09-09-2003 01:14 AM ET (US)
Keith, Wayne, Charles how are you guys doing tonight?
Doug you rule man. You just totally rule. Thanks for coming in. Bush was in Nashville today and Jenny was sad, because she didn't get to see her hero.
Dear God
You guys are awesome.
Goodnight folks
Talk at you tomorrow.
09-09-2003 01:14 AM ET (US)
Keith, Wayne, Charles how are you guys doing tonight?
Doug you rule man. You just totally rule. Thanks for coming in. Bush was in Nashville today and Jenny was sad, because she didn't get to see her hero.
Dear God
You guys are awesome.
Goodnight folks
Talk at you tomorrow.
Keith Brekhus 1112
09-09-2003 01:24 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 01:24 AM
I might be making a road trip to Indianola, Iowa next weekend for the Harkin steak fry barbeque. Its only 25 bucks to get in and I think most, if not all nine of the Democratic hopefuls are speaking there and so is Bill Clinton.
If I go, I'll give a synopsis when I return. It will be my first chance to see Howard Dean in person.
09-09-2003 01:24 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 01:24 AM
I might be making a road trip to Indianola, Iowa next weekend for the Harkin steak fry barbeque. Its only 25 bucks to get in and I think most, if not all nine of the Democratic hopefuls are speaking there and so is Bill Clinton.
If I go, I'll give a synopsis when I return. It will be my first chance to see Howard Dean in person.
Ann Stewart 1113
09-09-2003 02:24 AM ET (US)
Wow Keith
You make sure you report to us on that. That would be great.
09-09-2003 02:24 AM ET (US)
Wow Keith
You make sure you report to us on that. That would be great.
Michael Bohannon 1114
09-09-2003 04:09 AM ET (US)
I used to be staunchly conservative, but education is one of those issues that got me to reexamine what I really believe. Conservatives can't help but to relate everything in the world to business principles, but there are crucial areas of society that just don't work accordingly. And if it doesn't work according to those principles, then conservatives consider it a waste of time. There are little moderates left in the Republican party that understand that. It surprises me just how much they hate public education. Doing the right thing is not always efficient. There's not going to be a return on investment and profit margins to gauge success, but there is going to be a serious lack of high-skilled workers if schools are not properly funded. I think that I myself came out of high school unprepared. Our present education system is geared toward providing low-skilled workers. Courses and subjects related to professional careers are considered college material and readily available for those who can afford education, when in fact they should be made more available at the high school level to better ensure that we have a sustainable workforce in the future.
09-09-2003 04:09 AM ET (US)
I used to be staunchly conservative, but education is one of those issues that got me to reexamine what I really believe. Conservatives can't help but to relate everything in the world to business principles, but there are crucial areas of society that just don't work accordingly. And if it doesn't work according to those principles, then conservatives consider it a waste of time. There are little moderates left in the Republican party that understand that. It surprises me just how much they hate public education. Doing the right thing is not always efficient. There's not going to be a return on investment and profit margins to gauge success, but there is going to be a serious lack of high-skilled workers if schools are not properly funded. I think that I myself came out of high school unprepared. Our present education system is geared toward providing low-skilled workers. Courses and subjects related to professional careers are considered college material and readily available for those who can afford education, when in fact they should be made more available at the high school level to better ensure that we have a sustainable workforce in the future.
sindhu kumar 1115
09-09-2003 10:13 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 10:13 AM
well said Michael Bohannon!
09-09-2003 10:13 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-09-2003 10:13 AM
well said Michael Bohannon!
doug in indiana 1116
09-09-2003 11:57 AM ET (US)
From True Majority:
Rather than admitting the shortcomings of his failed policy and plotting a course to get us out of Iraq, George Bush used the speech to the nation to repeat his lies in the hopes that people will believe them if said often enough.
There was no mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush continued to equate Iraq with al-Qaeda terrorists even though there's no factual basis for the charge, and then he asked us for another $87 BILLION to bail him out.
How much is $87 billion? For that amount of money, America could:
Solve the school budget crisis in every one of our communities,
OR
Provide health insurance for every uninsured American child for 15 years,
OR
Provide food for all 6 million of the children who die from hunger around the world for 7 years.
A day of protest is being planned for October 25 in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles and places in between. For information about these events, go to:
http://www.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=371009&l=112
09-09-2003 11:57 AM ET (US)
From True Majority:
Rather than admitting the shortcomings of his failed policy and plotting a course to get us out of Iraq, George Bush used the speech to the nation to repeat his lies in the hopes that people will believe them if said often enough.
There was no mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush continued to equate Iraq with al-Qaeda terrorists even though there's no factual basis for the charge, and then he asked us for another $87 BILLION to bail him out.
How much is $87 billion? For that amount of money, America could:
Solve the school budget crisis in every one of our communities,
OR
Provide health insurance for every uninsured American child for 15 years,
OR
Provide food for all 6 million of the children who die from hunger around the world for 7 years.
A day of protest is being planned for October 25 in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles and places in between. For information about these events, go to:
http://www.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=371009&l=112
Brad 1117
09-09-2003 01:03 PM ET (US)
Hey Ann
Have u ever thought Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussien could have found this website and be writing all this stuff? They'd probably write something along the lines of
Hey Doug
You are cool as shit. You got all the infomation dude.
Vote Dean People. He's gonna win this thing.
Ann I don't care how much support you think Bush has in Tennessee. Dean's Got support here too. You would know you work with us. Dean gonna win this election. I can just feel it.
09-09-2003 01:03 PM ET (US)
Hey Ann
Have u ever thought Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussien could have found this website and be writing all this stuff? They'd probably write something along the lines of
Hey Doug
You are cool as shit. You got all the infomation dude.
Vote Dean People. He's gonna win this thing.
Ann I don't care how much support you think Bush has in Tennessee. Dean's Got support here too. You would know you work with us. Dean gonna win this election. I can just feel it.
Ann Stewart 1118
09-09-2003 02:54 PM ET (US)
Hey Brad
That is an interesting idea. I never thought of that.
Hi Doug and All the rest of you folks.
I just want to say something referring back to Keith's message that he might get to meet Dean. If any of you supporters do meet Dean, Kerry, Bush or any other people in the race for the Whitehouse please write me a report on it and it will be front page news on my News blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I think it would be incredible to have a story like that of a meeting with one of the Candidates and what you thought of him when you meet him. OK give me some good front page news reports if you can supporters.
Thanks so much for the comments.
09-09-2003 02:54 PM ET (US)
Hey Brad
That is an interesting idea. I never thought of that.
Hi Doug and All the rest of you folks.
I just want to say something referring back to Keith's message that he might get to meet Dean. If any of you supporters do meet Dean, Kerry, Bush or any other people in the race for the Whitehouse please write me a report on it and it will be front page news on my News blog at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com I think it would be incredible to have a story like that of a meeting with one of the Candidates and what you thought of him when you meet him. OK give me some good front page news reports if you can supporters.
Thanks so much for the comments.
Wayne in Missouri 1119
09-09-2003 04:47 PM ET (US)
Looks like the $87 billion price tag was a $55 billion dollar understatement. More like $142 billion dollars.
From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — The White House acknowledged Monday that it substantially underestimated the cost of rebuilding Iraq and that even the additional $87 billion it was seeking from a wary Congress would fall far short of what is needed for postwar reconstruction.
Administration officials said President Bush's emergency spending request — which would push the U.S. budget deficit above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time — still left a reconstruction funding gap of as much as $55 billion.
********
"The stability of Iraq, the stability of a different kind of Middle East, will serve well the interests of the entire international community," national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CBS' "Early Show." "Therefore it is important that the entire international community be involved in this heroic effort."
But some independent reconstruction specialists questioned whether other nations would be willing to dig deep to cover the rising costs of reconstruction following a U.S.-led military intervention that many of the governments considered a mistake.
"From what we have been hearing about the donors conference, they'll be lucky if they get $1 billion," said Bathsheba Crocker, co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ir...l=la-home-headlines
09-09-2003 04:47 PM ET (US)
Looks like the $87 billion price tag was a $55 billion dollar understatement. More like $142 billion dollars.
From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — The White House acknowledged Monday that it substantially underestimated the cost of rebuilding Iraq and that even the additional $87 billion it was seeking from a wary Congress would fall far short of what is needed for postwar reconstruction.
Administration officials said President Bush's emergency spending request — which would push the U.S. budget deficit above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time — still left a reconstruction funding gap of as much as $55 billion.
********
"The stability of Iraq, the stability of a different kind of Middle East, will serve well the interests of the entire international community," national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CBS' "Early Show." "Therefore it is important that the entire international community be involved in this heroic effort."
But some independent reconstruction specialists questioned whether other nations would be willing to dig deep to cover the rising costs of reconstruction following a U.S.-led military intervention that many of the governments considered a mistake.
"From what we have been hearing about the donors conference, they'll be lucky if they get $1 billion," said Bathsheba Crocker, co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ir...l=la-home-headlines
Brad 1120
09-10-2003 12:38 PM ET (US)
You know Leiberman said "we will go from Bush's rescession to Dean's Depression." If we elected Dean.
I saw them once on TV. They were catering to questions in Espanol. Dean answered in Spainsh really well. Leiberman didn't answer in Spainsh very well at all. He was fumbleing for Words in Spainsh. He looked sad up there.
09-10-2003 12:38 PM ET (US)
You know Leiberman said "we will go from Bush's rescession to Dean's Depression." If we elected Dean.
I saw them once on TV. They were catering to questions in Espanol. Dean answered in Spainsh really well. Leiberman didn't answer in Spainsh very well at all. He was fumbleing for Words in Spainsh. He looked sad up there.
Lee P. 1121
09-10-2003 12:47 PM ET (US)
Richard Gephardt has said Bush2 will be as Bush1. 4years and he's done.
Have any of you been getting in on the debates on TV? Kerry is said to be talking about Dean, Dean, Dean. I guess they think Dean is the head honco in the race.
Wesley Clark is looking like a possible good contender. He has military service. I think all Presidents should have some military training.
09-10-2003 12:47 PM ET (US)
Richard Gephardt has said Bush2 will be as Bush1. 4years and he's done.
Have any of you been getting in on the debates on TV? Kerry is said to be talking about Dean, Dean, Dean. I guess they think Dean is the head honco in the race.
Wesley Clark is looking like a possible good contender. He has military service. I think all Presidents should have some military training.
Patti Ferschke 1122
09-10-2003 04:11 PM ET (US)
The Doctor put his foot on his mouth last night blasting the DEMS about civil rights. He was just the person Sharpton was referring to in his message to the DEMS. We don't need a loaded gun in office that continues to say these horrible things,nor do we need one that flip flops on foreign policy like soup du jour!
09-10-2003 04:11 PM ET (US)
The Doctor put his foot on his mouth last night blasting the DEMS about civil rights. He was just the person Sharpton was referring to in his message to the DEMS. We don't need a loaded gun in office that continues to say these horrible things,nor do we need one that flip flops on foreign policy like soup du jour!
Ann Stewart 1123
09-10-2003 04:19 PM ET (US)
You know Patti, you need to stick around. You are like the star attraction for Kerry. Don't be such a stranger.You hard fighting honey. I respect your loyalty.
09-10-2003 04:19 PM ET (US)
You know Patti, you need to stick around. You are like the star attraction for Kerry. Don't be such a stranger.You hard fighting honey. I respect your loyalty.
Wayne in Missouri 1124
09-10-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
I listened to the debate last night and thought Dean was outstanding. Of the main contenders he was far and away the best last night.
In the previous New Mexico debate I thought Gephardt was the best.
Lieberman is looking desperate to take down Dean and it's clear Dean is the frontrunner everyone is gunning for. He handled it very well last night.
09-10-2003 11:15 PM ET (US)
I listened to the debate last night and thought Dean was outstanding. Of the main contenders he was far and away the best last night.
In the previous New Mexico debate I thought Gephardt was the best.
Lieberman is looking desperate to take down Dean and it's clear Dean is the frontrunner everyone is gunning for. He handled it very well last night.
Wayne in Missouri 1125
09-10-2003 11:21 PM ET (US)
Here are a couple of animated political cartoons about 9/11 and our Iraq distraction, which sadly show how far off we've strayed in the last two years.
Osama Bin Laden has become Osama Bin Forgotten with our misguided Iraq obsession and our reckless go-it-alone foreign policy.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/twoyear.html
This second cartoon is from last year:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/remember.html
09-10-2003 11:21 PM ET (US)
Here are a couple of animated political cartoons about 9/11 and our Iraq distraction, which sadly show how far off we've strayed in the last two years.
Osama Bin Laden has become Osama Bin Forgotten with our misguided Iraq obsession and our reckless go-it-alone foreign policy.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/twoyear.html
This second cartoon is from last year:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/remember.html
Ann Stewart 1126
09-10-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
You know Wayne I hear Dean speaks great Spanish. From a friend at work, he also said he was great at debating. That is so cool you reported that to us.
09-10-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)
You know Wayne I hear Dean speaks great Spanish. From a friend at work, he also said he was great at debating. That is so cool you reported that to us.
Wayne in Missouri 1128
09-10-2003 11:30 PM ET (US)
Ann,
Brad deserves credit for noting Dean's good Spanish at the New Mexico debate. My wife who speaks Spanish said the same thing--Dean's Spanish was very good.
By the way I thought this Tennessee Fair straw poll might be of interest here:
"Dean Leads in Iowa, Tennessee Polls"
The latest Zogby Poll of those likely to attend the Iowa Caucuses confirms Howard Dean's lead in the state:
Dean was at 23 percent; Gephardt, a Missouri congressman, 17 percent; and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, 11 percent, in the Iowa poll conducted by Zogby International.... 6 percent of those likely to attend the caucuses chose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 4 percent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and 2 percent Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Florida Sen. Bob Graham, Carol Moseley Braun and retired Gen. Wesley Clark had 1 percent.
Dean also won an informal poll conducted over Labor Day Weekend among the Democratic attendees of the Middle Tennessee Labor Day Celebration. The Leaf Chronicle of Clarksville, TN reports:
Dean earned 348 votes, while Gephardt came in second with 233 votes. Edwards rounded out the top three with 125 votes....
Democrats hope the poll will reveal how Tennesseans will vote in the Feb. 10 Presidential Primary, which is good news for Dean supporters.
"I hope this shows that Howard Dean is a viable candidate here in the South," said Gary Cobb, a volunteer for the Dean campaign. "This was purely a grass roots effort, and it's a result of Howard Dean's appeal."
http://blogforamerica.com/
09-10-2003 11:30 PM ET (US)
Ann,
Brad deserves credit for noting Dean's good Spanish at the New Mexico debate. My wife who speaks Spanish said the same thing--Dean's Spanish was very good.
By the way I thought this Tennessee Fair straw poll might be of interest here:
"Dean Leads in Iowa, Tennessee Polls"
The latest Zogby Poll of those likely to attend the Iowa Caucuses confirms Howard Dean's lead in the state:
Dean was at 23 percent; Gephardt, a Missouri congressman, 17 percent; and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, 11 percent, in the Iowa poll conducted by Zogby International.... 6 percent of those likely to attend the caucuses chose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 4 percent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and 2 percent Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Florida Sen. Bob Graham, Carol Moseley Braun and retired Gen. Wesley Clark had 1 percent.
Dean also won an informal poll conducted over Labor Day Weekend among the Democratic attendees of the Middle Tennessee Labor Day Celebration. The Leaf Chronicle of Clarksville, TN reports:
Dean earned 348 votes, while Gephardt came in second with 233 votes. Edwards rounded out the top three with 125 votes....
Democrats hope the poll will reveal how Tennesseans will vote in the Feb. 10 Presidential Primary, which is good news for Dean supporters.
"I hope this shows that Howard Dean is a viable candidate here in the South," said Gary Cobb, a volunteer for the Dean campaign. "This was purely a grass roots effort, and it's a result of Howard Dean's appeal."
http://blogforamerica.com/
Ann Stewart 1129
09-11-2003 12:27 AM ET (US)
Thanks Wayne for that report. If you should ever get to meet Dean I want to know about it.
Keith said he might get to meet Dean soon. I would post that meeting on my news blog. It would be front page news.
Love you guys.
09-11-2003 12:27 AM ET (US)
Thanks Wayne for that report. If you should ever get to meet Dean I want to know about it.
Keith said he might get to meet Dean soon. I would post that meeting on my news blog. It would be front page news.
Love you guys.
Lysa 1130
09-11-2003 01:45 AM ET (US)
I agree with Ann on that Wayne, Thank you.
Today, while hunting down the representative for my district to write him a letter complaining about the recent DC voucher vote that Delay scheduled to coincide with the democratic debate I learned that our very own Keith Brekhus ran in the 2002 election for the same seat.
Guilty I am feeling because I didn't register to vote and would have gladly voted for you, Keith. Are you going to be running in 2004? If so you've got my vote. Missouri, last I read, is still open so I can vote both Democratic for Dean and Green for you.
09-11-2003 01:45 AM ET (US)
I agree with Ann on that Wayne, Thank you.
Today, while hunting down the representative for my district to write him a letter complaining about the recent DC voucher vote that Delay scheduled to coincide with the democratic debate I learned that our very own Keith Brekhus ran in the 2002 election for the same seat.
Guilty I am feeling because I didn't register to vote and would have gladly voted for you, Keith. Are you going to be running in 2004? If so you've got my vote. Missouri, last I read, is still open so I can vote both Democratic for Dean and Green for you.
Patti Ferschke 1131
09-11-2003 01:55 AM ET (US)
Do you guys realize how many flops Dean did last ? He contiues down the path of self-destruction and we're not goimg with him. He's exactly the dem Sharpton was speaking to. People are going to be very careful and not chose a straight shooterthis time. We got fooled the last time and NO more rookies allowed..this time
09-11-2003 01:55 AM ET (US)
Do you guys realize how many flops Dean did last ? He contiues down the path of self-destruction and we're not goimg with him. He's exactly the dem Sharpton was speaking to. People are going to be very careful and not chose a straight shooterthis time. We got fooled the last time and NO more rookies allowed..this time
Ann Stewart 1132
09-11-2003 02:28 AM ET (US)
Hey Patti and Lysa
Yes Lysa Keith did run for Congress and I believe that is why he is so educated about this election. I have learned so much from him. Keith we love you man, if I lived there I would vote for you too.
PS Keith I'm still sending you that box of COOKIES if you get all your prediction right.
09-11-2003 02:28 AM ET (US)
Hey Patti and Lysa
Yes Lysa Keith did run for Congress and I believe that is why he is so educated about this election. I have learned so much from him. Keith we love you man, if I lived there I would vote for you too.
PS Keith I'm still sending you that box of COOKIES if you get all your prediction right.
Ann Stewart 1133
09-11-2003 02:29 AM ET (US)
Keith I'm going to email you for some information. Check your email box for it tomorrow, but for tonight I need some sleep. Goodnight all
Love you for coming in today.
09-11-2003 02:29 AM ET (US)
Keith I'm going to email you for some information. Check your email box for it tomorrow, but for tonight I need some sleep. Goodnight all
Love you for coming in today.
Keith Brekhus 1134
09-11-2003 09:59 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-11-2003 10:04 AM
Yes I ran for Congress in 2002. I may run for an office again in 2006 but probably not in 2004. If I run again I might run for a state rep. or local office rather than a federal one just because I can get a lot higher percentage in and around Columbia than elsewhere.
I ran as a Green in a four-way race with an incumbent Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian. In 2002 I had 8% of the vote in the city of Columbia, Missouri, 17% in the inner city first ward and 32% in one precinct (I even beat the incumbent Republican Congressman in that precinct).
I had to rely on door-to-door canvassing and media stunts to attract the attention of the Columbia paper since Hulshof spent 850,000 dollars and I only spent 2,000. The areas I canvassed polled well for me, but I couldn't reach the people in far away parts of the district and it showed.
One of the funniest campaign incidents was when I tried to hold a news conference in front of Wal-Mart calling for raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Wal-Mart security chased us off the sidewalk even though we weren't on Wal Mart property.
The next week we showed up with drums of oil in front of the Congressman's local office protesting his support for War on Iraq and his lack of support for renewable energy. We even had two hybrid cars there parked around the oil drums which had messages posted on them. We got chased off the lot, but the news crews got some good visuals there.
09-11-2003 09:59 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-11-2003 10:04 AM
Yes I ran for Congress in 2002. I may run for an office again in 2006 but probably not in 2004. If I run again I might run for a state rep. or local office rather than a federal one just because I can get a lot higher percentage in and around Columbia than elsewhere.
I ran as a Green in a four-way race with an incumbent Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian. In 2002 I had 8% of the vote in the city of Columbia, Missouri, 17% in the inner city first ward and 32% in one precinct (I even beat the incumbent Republican Congressman in that precinct).
I had to rely on door-to-door canvassing and media stunts to attract the attention of the Columbia paper since Hulshof spent 850,000 dollars and I only spent 2,000. The areas I canvassed polled well for me, but I couldn't reach the people in far away parts of the district and it showed.
One of the funniest campaign incidents was when I tried to hold a news conference in front of Wal-Mart calling for raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Wal-Mart security chased us off the sidewalk even though we weren't on Wal Mart property.
The next week we showed up with drums of oil in front of the Congressman's local office protesting his support for War on Iraq and his lack of support for renewable energy. We even had two hybrid cars there parked around the oil drums which had messages posted on them. We got chased off the lot, but the news crews got some good visuals there.
Keith Brekhus 1135
09-11-2003 10:25 AM ET (US)
For anyone who is interested here are some links from the local papers when I ran for office. The first and fourth links even have my picture, though I don't think either picture looks great.
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/oct/20021027news001.asp
http://columbiamissourian.com/politics/2002/ushouse.php
http://64.146.17.242/stories/102102/sta_1021020055.asp
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/nov/20021103feat004.asp
09-11-2003 10:25 AM ET (US)
For anyone who is interested here are some links from the local papers when I ran for office. The first and fourth links even have my picture, though I don't think either picture looks great.
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/oct/20021027news001.asp
http://columbiamissourian.com/politics/2002/ushouse.php
http://64.146.17.242/stories/102102/sta_1021020055.asp
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/nov/20021103feat004.asp
Ann Stewart 1136
09-11-2003 10:32 AM ET (US)
Dear Keith check your email inbox. I emailed you this morning. I'm at work now so I got to get back to work.
Keith Can you send me a picture of you? I want to help promote you for your next run for Congress. I promote my congressman Jim Cooper and I would love to support you on the internet by giving people information on you and putting it out on a website for you. I would love to build a whole fan site on you and put kind comments on it from people on the internet. I don't know if it will help you in your next run, but it might. Please send a picture if you have one and check out my news blog. I want to do a post there on you and a new website on you. I really think you are so intelligent, you would make a great congressman, plus I like where you stand on the issues. I will do a write up on you and how you have educated us on the issues in the 2004 race for the Whitehouse. What do you think about this?
Ann Stewart
Your Online Friend
09-11-2003 10:32 AM ET (US)
Dear Keith check your email inbox. I emailed you this morning. I'm at work now so I got to get back to work.
Keith Can you send me a picture of you? I want to help promote you for your next run for Congress. I promote my congressman Jim Cooper and I would love to support you on the internet by giving people information on you and putting it out on a website for you. I would love to build a whole fan site on you and put kind comments on it from people on the internet. I don't know if it will help you in your next run, but it might. Please send a picture if you have one and check out my news blog. I want to do a post there on you and a new website on you. I really think you are so intelligent, you would make a great congressman, plus I like where you stand on the issues. I will do a write up on you and how you have educated us on the issues in the 2004 race for the Whitehouse. What do you think about this?
Ann Stewart
Your Online Friend
doug in indiana 1137
09-11-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
patti, first let me say this.
dont be mad at dean cause your guy is going nowhere.
o.k.
thanks.
now onto the real problem, bush.
So, you'd think that after the tragedy of 9/11, the promises to revamp internal security, to aid cooperation and information sharing between different federal agencies and the billions spent on homeland security including the establishment of a seperate department you could sleep peacefully that no such attacks could ever take place, and that the US was possibly the safest place on earth to be in.
Wrong.
The ABC network was successfully able to penetrate the US borders by smuggling depleted uranium (that cannot be used for weapons) from Indonesia to the US!!! You'd think that the country of origin itself could send an alarm but nopes they got through w/o raising an eyebrow.
ABC Ships Uranium Overseas for Story :Federal Officials Call Test a Crime
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News says it has exposed a crucial weakness in the nation's port security system by shipping depleted uranium from Jakarta, Indonesia, to Los Angeles. Federal officials say the network seems to have committed a crime.
"We feel this is a very valid and important test," ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said yesterday. "This is what journalists do. . . . It was not our intent to defraud the U.S."
But Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said that "it appears they violated the law, and the Justice Department is taking a look at that. Does a news organization have a right to break the law? Can a reporter rob a bank to prove that bank security is weak? My understanding of journalistic ethics is you don't break the law in pursuit of news."
The government's response to the undercover operation by ABC prompted a strong letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
"I would urge that significant caution must be used by the federal government to ensure that legitimate reporting is not chilled," Grassley wrote, adding: "If my neighbor told me my barn was on fire, my first instinct would be to thank my neighbor and get some water for the fire. . . . Time and again, I find federal agencies devoting enormous time and energy to attacking whoever put the spotlight on a government mistake."
The report by ABC's Brian Ross, scheduled to air tonight on "Primetime Thursday," involves 15 pounds of lead-encased uranium put in a teak trunk along with other furniture in Jakarta, a terrorist hot spot.
Shipping depleted uranium, which cannot be converted to weapons use, is legal. But Murphy said the network "failed to disclose the contents accurately, which is a false declaration."
Schneider countered: "Do you think terrorists are going to fill out a form saying they're shipping uranium? That's the point of the test."
The two sides differed sharply on the importance of the test. Murphy said depleted uranium does not give off the same radioactive signals as the active kind, and that federal devices "are geared up for the real thing."
But ABC quoted a nuclear physicist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which provided the uranium, as saying that if federal inspectors "can't detect that, then they can't detect the real thing."
Murphy also contended that his department used its contacts to crack the case. But Schneider said the government was notified only after an ABC camera crew identified itself to a truck driver hired by the network, who had become suspicious that U.S. Customs agents had missed something at the Los Angeles port.
ABC questioned why federal investigators interviewed some of the network's staffers, demanded their videotapes and showed up unannounced at the Washington home of the NRDC physicist working with the network.
Murphy said the agents did not know that reporters were involved when they began their investigation. He noted that terrorists, such as members of al Qaeda, have posed as journalists in the past.
ABC also breached port security last year when it shipped the same batch of uranium to the Staten Island, N.Y
09-11-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
patti, first let me say this.
dont be mad at dean cause your guy is going nowhere.
o.k.
thanks.
now onto the real problem, bush.
So, you'd think that after the tragedy of 9/11, the promises to revamp internal security, to aid cooperation and information sharing between different federal agencies and the billions spent on homeland security including the establishment of a seperate department you could sleep peacefully that no such attacks could ever take place, and that the US was possibly the safest place on earth to be in.
Wrong.
The ABC network was successfully able to penetrate the US borders by smuggling depleted uranium (that cannot be used for weapons) from Indonesia to the US!!! You'd think that the country of origin itself could send an alarm but nopes they got through w/o raising an eyebrow.
ABC Ships Uranium Overseas for Story :Federal Officials Call Test a Crime
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News says it has exposed a crucial weakness in the nation's port security system by shipping depleted uranium from Jakarta, Indonesia, to Los Angeles. Federal officials say the network seems to have committed a crime.
"We feel this is a very valid and important test," ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said yesterday. "This is what journalists do. . . . It was not our intent to defraud the U.S."
But Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said that "it appears they violated the law, and the Justice Department is taking a look at that. Does a news organization have a right to break the law? Can a reporter rob a bank to prove that bank security is weak? My understanding of journalistic ethics is you don't break the law in pursuit of news."
The government's response to the undercover operation by ABC prompted a strong letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
"I would urge that significant caution must be used by the federal government to ensure that legitimate reporting is not chilled," Grassley wrote, adding: "If my neighbor told me my barn was on fire, my first instinct would be to thank my neighbor and get some water for the fire. . . . Time and again, I find federal agencies devoting enormous time and energy to attacking whoever put the spotlight on a government mistake."
The report by ABC's Brian Ross, scheduled to air tonight on "Primetime Thursday," involves 15 pounds of lead-encased uranium put in a teak trunk along with other furniture in Jakarta, a terrorist hot spot.
Shipping depleted uranium, which cannot be converted to weapons use, is legal. But Murphy said the network "failed to disclose the contents accurately, which is a false declaration."
Schneider countered: "Do you think terrorists are going to fill out a form saying they're shipping uranium? That's the point of the test."
The two sides differed sharply on the importance of the test. Murphy said depleted uranium does not give off the same radioactive signals as the active kind, and that federal devices "are geared up for the real thing."
But ABC quoted a nuclear physicist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which provided the uranium, as saying that if federal inspectors "can't detect that, then they can't detect the real thing."
Murphy also contended that his department used its contacts to crack the case. But Schneider said the government was notified only after an ABC camera crew identified itself to a truck driver hired by the network, who had become suspicious that U.S. Customs agents had missed something at the Los Angeles port.
ABC questioned why federal investigators interviewed some of the network's staffers, demanded their videotapes and showed up unannounced at the Washington home of the NRDC physicist working with the network.
Murphy said the agents did not know that reporters were involved when they began their investigation. He noted that terrorists, such as members of al Qaeda, have posed as journalists in the past.
ABC also breached port security last year when it shipped the same batch of uranium to the Staten Island, N.Y
Ann Stewart 1138
09-11-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
You guys I’m fix'in to do some more comic updates on things about the second half of this debate that stands out in my mind, like all the fun and fighting at the 2004 debate and Doug you and Patti…I want to let you know, you guys will probably be stars of the show again.
Doug that was so funny. Doug you’re really good at being a smart ass. You’re kill me dude.
09-11-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
You guys I’m fix'in to do some more comic updates on things about the second half of this debate that stands out in my mind, like all the fun and fighting at the 2004 debate and Doug you and Patti…I want to let you know, you guys will probably be stars of the show again.
Doug that was so funny. Doug you’re really good at being a smart ass. You’re kill me dude.
Ann Stewart 1139
09-11-2003 04:22 PM ET (US)
Hey guys does anybody have anything to say about 9/11? I'm collecting comments on that for my news blog today.
09-11-2003 04:22 PM ET (US)
Hey guys does anybody have anything to say about 9/11? I'm collecting comments on that for my news blog today.
Ann Stewart 1140
09-11-2003 05:29 PM ET (US)
Hey Keith and Lysa when you come in check my blog. I did a report on keith using your statments.http://prettyboys.blogspot.com
I would like to make a site on you Keith.
09-11-2003 05:29 PM ET (US)
Hey Keith and Lysa when you come in check my blog. I did a report on keith using your statments.http://prettyboys.blogspot.com
I would like to make a site on you Keith.
Michael Bohannon 1141
09-11-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
9/11 is certainly a day of remembrance. We need to stand united not only with ourselves, but also with the rest of the world. We have to have a president committed more to forging peaceful cooperative relationships with the international community.
09-11-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
9/11 is certainly a day of remembrance. We need to stand united not only with ourselves, but also with the rest of the world. We have to have a president committed more to forging peaceful cooperative relationships with the international community.
sindhu kumar 1143
09-11-2003 06:18 PM ET (US)
way to go keith brekhus a polictical jenius amongst us bloggers!! sindhu from new orleans, la
09-11-2003 06:18 PM ET (US)
way to go keith brekhus a polictical jenius amongst us bloggers!! sindhu from new orleans, la
Wayne in Missouri 1144
09-11-2003 08:31 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-11-2003 08:39 PM
My 9/11 thoughts:
Having lived near NYC from 1990-1999 and having a wife who lived in New York City until 1999 and whose family lives in the DC area I remember the relief we felt when after a day or two it appeared that no one we knew had been killed in the 9/11 attacks or had had family members killed.
But then a couple days later we received a message from a former student and a current friend, that his brother had been killed in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. It was a shock..I had thought about all our friends in the NYC and DC area but had not expected the one family we knew that would be most directly and personally affected by 9/11 would be from Missouri. His brother, who was killed, was married with two young children.
Interestingly while some people less directly affected were thirsty for revenge, my friend said he hoped his brother's death wouldn't become an excuse for more violence.
It was amazing watching his strength and the strength of his brother's widow and her children in the face of such tragedy. They ended up co-founding an organization called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/
09-11-2003 08:31 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-11-2003 08:39 PM
My 9/11 thoughts:
Having lived near NYC from 1990-1999 and having a wife who lived in New York City until 1999 and whose family lives in the DC area I remember the relief we felt when after a day or two it appeared that no one we knew had been killed in the 9/11 attacks or had had family members killed.
But then a couple days later we received a message from a former student and a current friend, that his brother had been killed in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. It was a shock..I had thought about all our friends in the NYC and DC area but had not expected the one family we knew that would be most directly and personally affected by 9/11 would be from Missouri. His brother, who was killed, was married with two young children.
Interestingly while some people less directly affected were thirsty for revenge, my friend said he hoped his brother's death wouldn't become an excuse for more violence.
It was amazing watching his strength and the strength of his brother's widow and her children in the face of such tragedy. They ended up co-founding an organization called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/
Ann Stewart 1145
09-11-2003 09:06 PM ET (US)
Thanks Wayne I will post that on my blog. You can find it at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com good comment buddy.
09-11-2003 09:06 PM ET (US)
Thanks Wayne I will post that on my blog. You can find it at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com good comment buddy.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1146
09-12-2003 12:10 AM ET (US)
President Bush remembering 9/11. This is from his offical website. Thanks to our president who handled this crises so well we are better off today. Pres. Bush is not prefect, he has made mistakes, but he has done great things too, and 9/11 is proof of that. read this----
___________________________________________________________
President's Remarks
view
listen
President Reflects on September 11
St. John's Church
Washington, D.C.
Moment of Remembrance
Patriot Day Proclamation
Spirit of Freedom Tribute
8:03 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Today our nation remembers -- we remember a sad and terrible day, September the 11th, 2001. We remember lives lost. We remember the heroic deeds. We remember the compassion and the decency of our fellow citizens on that terrible day.
Also today is a day of prayer. We pray for the husbands and wives and moms and dads and sons and daughters and loved ones of those who still grieve and hurt. We pray for strength and wisdom. We thank God for the many blessings of this nation, and we ask His blessings on those who especially hurt today.
Thank you.
09-12-2003 12:10 AM ET (US)
President Bush remembering 9/11. This is from his offical website. Thanks to our president who handled this crises so well we are better off today. Pres. Bush is not prefect, he has made mistakes, but he has done great things too, and 9/11 is proof of that. read this----
___________________________________________________________
President's Remarks
view
listen
President Reflects on September 11
St. John's Church
Washington, D.C.
Moment of Remembrance
Patriot Day Proclamation
Spirit of Freedom Tribute
8:03 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Today our nation remembers -- we remember a sad and terrible day, September the 11th, 2001. We remember lives lost. We remember the heroic deeds. We remember the compassion and the decency of our fellow citizens on that terrible day.
Also today is a day of prayer. We pray for the husbands and wives and moms and dads and sons and daughters and loved ones of those who still grieve and hurt. We pray for strength and wisdom. We thank God for the many blessings of this nation, and we ask His blessings on those who especially hurt today.
Thank you.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1147
09-12-2003 12:12 AM ET (US)
Ann for my statement of 9/11 i believe we sould do what President Bush says and pray together for those families who lost loved ones.
Love you Ann
09-12-2003 12:12 AM ET (US)
Ann for my statement of 9/11 i believe we sould do what President Bush says and pray together for those families who lost loved ones.
Love you Ann
Keith Brekhus 1148
09-12-2003 12:37 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-12-2003 12:58 PM
Yesterday we remembered 9/11/2001--a tragedy so great that it will be forever etched in the minds of every American, never forgotten. But as you take a moment today to reflect on that horrible day, take a moment to reflect on today's tragedies that plague the world. As contractors from Halliburton make a killing in Iraq, think what 87 billion dollars could do to provide sanitation and preventable health care for the world's children.....
2 million people die every year globally from preventable tuberculosis
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/00pr24.htm
2.2 million people, mostly children, die annually from diarrhea
http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/cs/csddc.htm
1.5 to 2.7 million die annually from malaria
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/2/124
As our leaders change the rationale for invading Iraq (after finding no weapons of mass destruction) from they were a threat to the US to we did it to help the people of Iraq--think of all the less oil-rich nations of Sub-Saharan Africa where the carnage is greater and we turn a blind eye, oblivious to what is going on because our political leaders and the media haven't put it on our agenda, and we are either too complacent or too busy to crawl out of our ignorance and take note....
Congo: In two years, from 1998 to 2000, 2,300,000 people died in just five provinces of Congo due to war and disease-- 200,000 were due to acts of direct violence.
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/d78f...4b7d1d?OpenDocument
Sudan: Civil war led over the last 17 years to 2 million deaths from war-related famine, disease and casualties.
http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/sudan.htm
Uganda: 5000 children have been abducted in the last year to be turned into foot soldiers for the Christian terrorist army, the Lord's Resistance Army.
http://hrw.org/reports/2003/uganda0303/
And the results of our war in Iraq?
Iraq: 5000 to 10,000 civilian Iraqis were killed by the US during the recent war. 345 coalition soldiers killed, 1500 wounded.
http://iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
Let us never forget the human tragedy of 9/11/2001 when 3000 innocent people were killed by ruthless terrorists. But let us also not be blind to the preventable tragedies that are occurring around the world today and lets resolve to work together to shape a better world. It is simply not enough to express outrage at a single callous act and then resume our lives of indifference, leaving the politicians in charge to exploit that event to advance their political agendas. We must stay informed and involved--and shape the future. In some parts of the world, where needless death is the norm, 9/11 wasn't all that much different than any other day.
peace,
Keith
09-12-2003 12:37 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-12-2003 12:58 PM
Yesterday we remembered 9/11/2001--a tragedy so great that it will be forever etched in the minds of every American, never forgotten. But as you take a moment today to reflect on that horrible day, take a moment to reflect on today's tragedies that plague the world. As contractors from Halliburton make a killing in Iraq, think what 87 billion dollars could do to provide sanitation and preventable health care for the world's children.....
2 million people die every year globally from preventable tuberculosis
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/00pr24.htm
2.2 million people, mostly children, die annually from diarrhea
http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/cs/csddc.htm
1.5 to 2.7 million die annually from malaria
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/2/124
As our leaders change the rationale for invading Iraq (after finding no weapons of mass destruction) from they were a threat to the US to we did it to help the people of Iraq--think of all the less oil-rich nations of Sub-Saharan Africa where the carnage is greater and we turn a blind eye, oblivious to what is going on because our political leaders and the media haven't put it on our agenda, and we are either too complacent or too busy to crawl out of our ignorance and take note....
Congo: In two years, from 1998 to 2000, 2,300,000 people died in just five provinces of Congo due to war and disease-- 200,000 were due to acts of direct violence.
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/d78f...4b7d1d?OpenDocument
Sudan: Civil war led over the last 17 years to 2 million deaths from war-related famine, disease and casualties.
http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/sudan.htm
Uganda: 5000 children have been abducted in the last year to be turned into foot soldiers for the Christian terrorist army, the Lord's Resistance Army.
http://hrw.org/reports/2003/uganda0303/
And the results of our war in Iraq?
Iraq: 5000 to 10,000 civilian Iraqis were killed by the US during the recent war. 345 coalition soldiers killed, 1500 wounded.
http://iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
Let us never forget the human tragedy of 9/11/2001 when 3000 innocent people were killed by ruthless terrorists. But let us also not be blind to the preventable tragedies that are occurring around the world today and lets resolve to work together to shape a better world. It is simply not enough to express outrage at a single callous act and then resume our lives of indifference, leaving the politicians in charge to exploit that event to advance their political agendas. We must stay informed and involved--and shape the future. In some parts of the world, where needless death is the norm, 9/11 wasn't all that much different than any other day.
peace,
Keith
Matt 1149
09-12-2003 01:29 PM ET (US)
It won't matter who wins this time around. If Bush wins we're screwed, cause he can't get this country out of dept. If any of the others win we're still screwed cause they can't get us out of dept either. This country is in bad dept. Basically we're all screwed, there is no way to get this country out of dept. Bush dug a hole and barried us in it.
09-12-2003 01:29 PM ET (US)
It won't matter who wins this time around. If Bush wins we're screwed, cause he can't get this country out of dept. If any of the others win we're still screwed cause they can't get us out of dept either. This country is in bad dept. Basically we're all screwed, there is no way to get this country out of dept. Bush dug a hole and barried us in it.
Joy 1151
09-12-2003 01:47 PM ET (US)
HEY MATT WELCOME NEW FELLOW
ANN MY THOUGHTS ON 9/11. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. OUR GOVERMENT SAW IT COMING AND NEVER DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS AND NO ONE DID ANYTHING. NOW LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD. BAD---REAL BAD---SO SAD
09-12-2003 01:47 PM ET (US)
HEY MATT WELCOME NEW FELLOW
ANN MY THOUGHTS ON 9/11. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. OUR GOVERMENT SAW IT COMING AND NEVER DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS AND NO ONE DID ANYTHING. NOW LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD. BAD---REAL BAD---SO SAD
Keith Brekhus 1152
09-12-2003 01:53 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-12-2003 03:47 PM
One note on my post below. Sudan is in Africa but it is not all "Sub-Saharan Africa" although much of the area (Southern Sudan) where the fighting is taking place is.
09-12-2003 01:53 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-12-2003 03:47 PM
One note on my post below. Sudan is in Africa but it is not all "Sub-Saharan Africa" although much of the area (Southern Sudan) where the fighting is taking place is.
Ann Stewart 1153
09-12-2003 05:59 PM ET (US)
Hi everyone
Matt welcome
Joy thanks for the comments here and everywhere else too.
Keith I will post your 9/11 writings as if they were posted yesterday. It will be on my blog.
I saw Dean on CNN just a minute ago. He's still looks to be doing well.
09-12-2003 05:59 PM ET (US)
Hi everyone
Matt welcome
Joy thanks for the comments here and everywhere else too.
Keith I will post your 9/11 writings as if they were posted yesterday. It will be on my blog.
I saw Dean on CNN just a minute ago. He's still looks to be doing well.
Keith Brekhus 1154
09-13-2003 09:16 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-13-2003 09:16 AM
Dean is running a strong second in my state--Missouri (Gephardt's home state). If Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa look for Gephardt's campaign to fade and Dean to win Missouri as well. I'll go out on a limb and predict a Dean victory in Missouri come February.
http://www.komu.com/html/htmlFall2003/missouripoll091003.html
Gephardt 36%
Dean 22%
Kerry 14%
Lieberman 10%
09-13-2003 09:16 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-13-2003 09:16 AM
Dean is running a strong second in my state--Missouri (Gephardt's home state). If Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa look for Gephardt's campaign to fade and Dean to win Missouri as well. I'll go out on a limb and predict a Dean victory in Missouri come February.
http://www.komu.com/html/htmlFall2003/missouripoll091003.html
Gephardt 36%
Dean 22%
Kerry 14%
Lieberman 10%
Wayne in Missouri 1155
09-13-2003 10:57 AM ET (US)
Go Dr. Dean! I'll do my part to help him win Missouri in the primaries (and then work on helping him win the general).
I hope the black voter turnout is high in the general election. I noticed Bush polls only 1% among blacks in the state.
09-13-2003 10:57 AM ET (US)
Go Dr. Dean! I'll do my part to help him win Missouri in the primaries (and then work on helping him win the general).
I hope the black voter turnout is high in the general election. I noticed Bush polls only 1% among blacks in the state.
Patti Ferschke 1156
09-13-2003 12:40 PM ET (US)
Jennifer,the day to be 911 and "W" thoughts of the day were about his election toughts...ONLY ! When will you wake up! He can't even find the words,let alone read them if he's not tele-prompted. BAH..we need leadership not BUSH AND NOT DEAN ! Dean is as loaded to wall streetas Bush,even more so. Dean's roots go back to the Mayflower. I'm glad we have a candidate that even though he's weatlthy,stands outside the beltway for human rights on every level...go KERRY !
09-13-2003 12:40 PM ET (US)
Jennifer,the day to be 911 and "W" thoughts of the day were about his election toughts...ONLY ! When will you wake up! He can't even find the words,let alone read them if he's not tele-prompted. BAH..we need leadership not BUSH AND NOT DEAN ! Dean is as loaded to wall streetas Bush,even more so. Dean's roots go back to the Mayflower. I'm glad we have a candidate that even though he's weatlthy,stands outside the beltway for human rights on every level...go KERRY !
Patti Ferschke 1157
09-13-2003 01:07 PM ET (US)
I want to add one more post today. First off I want to say I'm with all of you Deanies that did not want to support that war..I'm a most anti-war person,and have always thought war is a lose- lose situation. Why I support JK is he's anti-war too and I don't think any of you believe that. FYI your Dean candidate sided with JK last OCT29th on MTP,as he was there with the other Dennis candidate, and said the same thing JK said all along! What we need to do now is have the best FP written to have a game plan that works for all. With Dean's flip/flops on all FP he's not the one to go on prime time ! I'm glad to be backing JK,as most Americans want to be safe,and want an experienced person to take us there. We can't be having soup du jour on a day to day basis with FP,and we can't continue down this path of no return,that goes nowhere. It's going to take the leadership of an inside person to do that,and one to hit the ground running from day one ! No more governors this go round!
09-13-2003 01:07 PM ET (US)
I want to add one more post today. First off I want to say I'm with all of you Deanies that did not want to support that war..I'm a most anti-war person,and have always thought war is a lose- lose situation. Why I support JK is he's anti-war too and I don't think any of you believe that. FYI your Dean candidate sided with JK last OCT29th on MTP,as he was there with the other Dennis candidate, and said the same thing JK said all along! What we need to do now is have the best FP written to have a game plan that works for all. With Dean's flip/flops on all FP he's not the one to go on prime time ! I'm glad to be backing JK,as most Americans want to be safe,and want an experienced person to take us there. We can't be having soup du jour on a day to day basis with FP,and we can't continue down this path of no return,that goes nowhere. It's going to take the leadership of an inside person to do that,and one to hit the ground running from day one ! No more governors this go round!
Ann Stewart 1158
09-13-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-13-2003 01:39 PM
Good Morning all you beautiful lovely folks. Patti I will be posting your 9/11 statment on my news blog right under Jenny's statment.
Nick Nack the Patti's Back
Keith & Wayne good to have you here today.
09-13-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-13-2003 01:39 PM
Good Morning all you beautiful lovely folks. Patti I will be posting your 9/11 statment on my news blog right under Jenny's statment.
Nick Nack the Patti's Back
Keith & Wayne good to have you here today.
Wayne in Missouri 1159
09-13-2003 01:50 PM ET (US)
Does anyone here read the satire magazine The Onion?
Folks, under George Dubya Bush satire has morphed into reality.
Remember this ONION story from back when Bush took office. Turns out it was true!
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html
BUSH: "OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY IS FINALLY OVER"
"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,"...."Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
"Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."
"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012,...That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
"We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
09-13-2003 01:50 PM ET (US)
Does anyone here read the satire magazine The Onion?
Folks, under George Dubya Bush satire has morphed into reality.
Remember this ONION story from back when Bush took office. Turns out it was true!
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html
BUSH: "OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY IS FINALLY OVER"
"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,"...."Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
"Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."
"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012,...That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
"We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
Martin 1160
09-13-2003 09:24 PM ET (US)
When Bush came here. No one had anything nice to say about him being here. They complained about him so much. They were not happy he was here. They did not want him here. Bush will not be the winnier in election. No one likes him.
09-13-2003 09:24 PM ET (US)
When Bush came here. No one had anything nice to say about him being here. They complained about him so much. They were not happy he was here. They did not want him here. Bush will not be the winnier in election. No one likes him.
Keith Brekhus 1161
09-14-2003 09:54 AM ET (US)
Hi Ann and site visitors. I wasn't able to make the road trip up to Iowa yesterday. So for those awaiting a report on the Harkin steak fry, I apologize but I don't have one. I understand that despite gloomy weather 8000 folks showed up and at least 1000 were visibly Dean partisans.
09-14-2003 09:54 AM ET (US)
Hi Ann and site visitors. I wasn't able to make the road trip up to Iowa yesterday. So for those awaiting a report on the Harkin steak fry, I apologize but I don't have one. I understand that despite gloomy weather 8000 folks showed up and at least 1000 were visibly Dean partisans.
Keith Brekhus 1162
09-14-2003 09:55 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-14-2003 09:55 AM
job growth under the US Presidents (post WWII)
Truman First Term: 60,000 jobs gained per month
Truman Second Term: 113,000 jobs gained per month
Eisenhower First Term: 58,000 jobs gained per month
Eisenhower Second Term: 15,000 jobs gained per month
Kennedy: 122,000 jobs gained per month
Johnson: 206,000 jobs gained per month
Nixon First Term: 129,000 jobs gained per month
Nixon/Ford : 105,000 jobs gained per month
Carter: 218,000 jobs gained per month
Reagan First Term: 109,000 jobs gained per month
Reagan Second Term: 224,000 jobs gained per month
G. Bush: 52,000 jobs gained per month
Clinton First Term: 242,000 jobs gained per month
Clinton Second Term: 235,000 jobs gained per month
G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs LOST per month
09-14-2003 09:55 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-14-2003 09:55 AM
job growth under the US Presidents (post WWII)
Truman First Term: 60,000 jobs gained per month
Truman Second Term: 113,000 jobs gained per month
Eisenhower First Term: 58,000 jobs gained per month
Eisenhower Second Term: 15,000 jobs gained per month
Kennedy: 122,000 jobs gained per month
Johnson: 206,000 jobs gained per month
Nixon First Term: 129,000 jobs gained per month
Nixon/Ford : 105,000 jobs gained per month
Carter: 218,000 jobs gained per month
Reagan First Term: 109,000 jobs gained per month
Reagan Second Term: 224,000 jobs gained per month
G. Bush: 52,000 jobs gained per month
Clinton First Term: 242,000 jobs gained per month
Clinton Second Term: 235,000 jobs gained per month
G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs LOST per month
Keith Brekhus 1163
09-14-2003 09:59 AM ET (US)
Saddling our children with debt....
(from today's Political Wire)
Bush's Red Ink
"When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents," the New York Times reports.
"Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be borrowed, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the next generation of taxpayers and the generation after that. The $166 billion cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire says Howard Dean will give a speech on "fiscal conservatism in economic-policy" next week.
09-14-2003 09:59 AM ET (US)
Saddling our children with debt....
(from today's Political Wire)
Bush's Red Ink
"When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents," the New York Times reports.
"Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be borrowed, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the next generation of taxpayers and the generation after that. The $166 billion cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire says Howard Dean will give a speech on "fiscal conservatism in economic-policy" next week.
Ann Stewart 1164
09-14-2003 11:53 AM ET (US)
Good morning Keith
Thanks for that information on Job growth. I love how you get all the facts to us.
I’m sorry you missed your window of opportunity to meet up with Howard Dean, but maybe there will be another event you might be able to meet him at.
Keep us updated on that speech Dean will be giving.
Thanks for coming in today.
09-14-2003 11:53 AM ET (US)
Good morning Keith
Thanks for that information on Job growth. I love how you get all the facts to us.
I’m sorry you missed your window of opportunity to meet up with Howard Dean, but maybe there will be another event you might be able to meet him at.
Keep us updated on that speech Dean will be giving.
Thanks for coming in today.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1165
09-14-2003 09:24 PM ET (US)
This is from the president's offical site
The No Child left Behind act
President Bush's Education Reform Initiatives
In the year since President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, the Bush Administration has worked closely with state and local education leaders to ensure that these important changes reach the classroom. And the new law is beginning to show results.
Through the new Reading First program, $412 million has been distributed to 20 states to help schools and districts improve children's reading achievement using scientifically proven methods of instruction.
States have implemented the public school choice provisions of the Act to allow parents of students in low-performing schools to transfer to a better public school. Additionally, states have identified supplemental service providers to provide after-school instruction and tutoring to students enrolled in schools in need of improvement.
Since the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002, the U.S. Department of Education has been working to implement this landmark Act to ensure that every child receives a high quality education.
09-14-2003 09:24 PM ET (US)
This is from the president's offical site
The No Child left Behind act
President Bush's Education Reform Initiatives
In the year since President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, the Bush Administration has worked closely with state and local education leaders to ensure that these important changes reach the classroom. And the new law is beginning to show results.
Through the new Reading First program, $412 million has been distributed to 20 states to help schools and districts improve children's reading achievement using scientifically proven methods of instruction.
States have implemented the public school choice provisions of the Act to allow parents of students in low-performing schools to transfer to a better public school. Additionally, states have identified supplemental service providers to provide after-school instruction and tutoring to students enrolled in schools in need of improvement.
Since the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002, the U.S. Department of Education has been working to implement this landmark Act to ensure that every child receives a high quality education.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1166
09-14-2003 09:31 PM ET (US)
You know Keith, Ann is a real estate agent, she said that the econmy is improving. She said loan rates our going up and that is a sign of a better economical market.
That means good job growth too. It will improve with time. Just be patient and you will see.
09-14-2003 09:31 PM ET (US)
You know Keith, Ann is a real estate agent, she said that the econmy is improving. She said loan rates our going up and that is a sign of a better economical market.
That means good job growth too. It will improve with time. Just be patient and you will see.
Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 1167
09-14-2003 09:32 PM ET (US)
Boy Keith I still wish you were on Bush's side. You are so smart.
09-14-2003 09:32 PM ET (US)
Boy Keith I still wish you were on Bush's side. You are so smart.
Ann Stewart 1168
09-15-2003 12:59 AM ET (US)
Yeah Jen
But that doesn't mean I credit Bush for that, and that doesn't mean I think you should vote for him. We still haven't seen that big of a turn around in the fluctuating market from Greenspan. I still don’t think Bush or anyone else is going to be able to pull us out of the economical problems this country is face, and just because the market has gone up a few points doesn’t mean it will create jobs. That is the theory though. Unemployment is still at it’s highest.
09-15-2003 12:59 AM ET (US)
Yeah Jen
But that doesn't mean I credit Bush for that, and that doesn't mean I think you should vote for him. We still haven't seen that big of a turn around in the fluctuating market from Greenspan. I still don’t think Bush or anyone else is going to be able to pull us out of the economical problems this country is face, and just because the market has gone up a few points doesn’t mean it will create jobs. That is the theory though. Unemployment is still at it’s highest.
Keith Brekhus 1169
09-15-2003 10:24 AM ET (US)
I didn't make it to Iowa, but some other people from my town did. They have told of their experiences on our local e-mail list. This one is my favorite so far. Perhaps any politician would have done it, but its still a nice story that made somebody's day...
"I went to the rally with a friend who is in a wheelchair. She wasn't able to get out in the rain for fear that it would short out her battery. I was walking back to the car and Dean was a couple of steps ahead of me. I caught up to him and asked if he would say hello to her since she wasn't able to get out. He came over and thanked her for coming out. It was Very cool! We have another die hard supporter."
09-15-2003 10:24 AM ET (US)
I didn't make it to Iowa, but some other people from my town did. They have told of their experiences on our local e-mail list. This one is my favorite so far. Perhaps any politician would have done it, but its still a nice story that made somebody's day...
"I went to the rally with a friend who is in a wheelchair. She wasn't able to get out in the rain for fear that it would short out her battery. I was walking back to the car and Dean was a couple of steps ahead of me. I caught up to him and asked if he would say hello to her since she wasn't able to get out. He came over and thanked her for coming out. It was Very cool! We have another die hard supporter."
Keith Brekhus 1170
09-15-2003 10:48 AM ET (US)
For anyone who knows someone struggling with mental illness, Howard Dean's support for mental health parity may be reason alone to support his candidacy. This is not a partisan issue, since mental illness can strike conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. It is refreshing to see a candidate who understands this issue and who supports mental health parity.
From the New Republic's Jonathon Cohn...
PEACE OF MIND
by Jonathan Cohn
Candidate: Howard Dean
Category: Domestic Policy
Grade: A
.....
Speaking in New Hampshire today, Dean outlined a plan to improve mental health care. The main item on his agenda would be to enact a new mental health parity law, which would require insurance companies to cover psychiatric illness just as they cover physical illnesses. (The existing law ostensibly requires equal treatment; however, it is ridden with loopholes, which is why Senator Pete Domenici and the late Senator Paul Wellstone pushed so hard for a new one last year.) Dean has also called for more investment in community health services. Never that well-funded in the first place, those services have been among the hardest hit by state budget cuts during the present recession.
Dean isn't the only candidate who supports parity legislation. Lieberman called for it in his health plan a few weeks ago; and most (actually, quite possibly all) of the Democratic candidates have voted for it at one time or another. But as on most health care issues, Dean's record shows that he's been more than a reform supporter. He's been a reform leader.
In 1997, he signed Vermont's mental health parity law. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill called it "broadest and most comprehensive law" passed that year, then went on to single out Dean for special praise: "It is particularly appropriate that Governor Dean should sign this bill into law. Not only is Governor Dean a physician who understands the medical nature of brain disorders, but he also has long been supportive of efforts to end discrimination against people with such illnesses. Back in 1985, when he was a state legislator from Burlington, then Representative Dean supported one of the first bills in Vermont to end insurance discrimination."
09-15-2003 10:48 AM ET (US)
For anyone who knows someone struggling with mental illness, Howard Dean's support for mental health parity may be reason alone to support his candidacy. This is not a partisan issue, since mental illness can strike conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. It is refreshing to see a candidate who understands this issue and who supports mental health parity.
From the New Republic's Jonathon Cohn...
PEACE OF MIND
by Jonathan Cohn
Candidate: Howard Dean
Category: Domestic Policy
Grade: A
.....
Speaking in New Hampshire today, Dean outlined a plan to improve mental health care. The main item on his agenda would be to enact a new mental health parity law, which would require insurance companies to cover psychiatric illness just as they cover physical illnesses. (The existing law ostensibly requires equal treatment; however, it is ridden with loopholes, which is why Senator Pete Domenici and the late Senator Paul Wellstone pushed so hard for a new one last year.) Dean has also called for more investment in community health services. Never that well-funded in the first place, those services have been among the hardest hit by state budget cuts during the present recession.
Dean isn't the only candidate who supports parity legislation. Lieberman called for it in his health plan a few weeks ago; and most (actually, quite possibly all) of the Democratic candidates have voted for it at one time or another. But as on most health care issues, Dean's record shows that he's been more than a reform supporter. He's been a reform leader.
In 1997, he signed Vermont's mental health parity law. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill called it "broadest and most comprehensive law" passed that year, then went on to single out Dean for special praise: "It is particularly appropriate that Governor Dean should sign this bill into law. Not only is Governor Dean a physician who understands the medical nature of brain disorders, but he also has long been supportive of efforts to end discrimination against people with such illnesses. Back in 1985, when he was a state legislator from Burlington, then Representative Dean supported one of the first bills in Vermont to end insurance discrimination."
Keith Brekhus 1171
09-15-2003 12:23 PM ET (US)
Paul Krugman points out the problem tax cuts pose. On our current course of paying by borrowing we are headed on the path to a fiscal trainwreck. Either we repeal the tax cuts,
severely reduce social security and medicare payments, or we become the next Argentina (a third world country saddled with crippling debt). I vote for repealing the tax cuts and presevring our future.
Krugman:
"Nobody likes paying taxes . . . But most Americans also care a lot about the things taxes pay for. All politicians say they're for public education; almost all of them also say they support a strong national defense, maintaining Social Security and, if anything, expanding the coverage of Medicare. When the "guy on the news" asks whether we can afford a tax cut, he's asking whether, after yet another tax cut goes through, there will be enough money to pay for those things. And the answer is no.
But it's very difficult to get that answer across in modern American politics, which has been dominated for 25 years by a crusade against taxes.
I don't use the word "crusade" lightly. The advocates of tax cuts are relentless, even fanatical. An indication of the movement's fervor -- and of its political power -- came during the Iraq war. War is expensive and is almost always accompanied by tax increases. But not in 2003. "Nothing is more important in the face of a war," declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, "than cutting taxes." And sure enough, taxes were cut, not just in a time of war but also in the face of record budget deficits. Nor will it be easy to reverse those tax cuts: the tax-cut movement has convinced many Americans -- like Tinsley -- that everybody still pays far too much in taxes.
A result of the tax-cut crusade is that there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect to receive from the government and the revenues government collect. This mismatch is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: teachers and policemen are being laid off and children are being denied health insurance. The federal government can mask its problems for a while, by running huge budget deficits, but it, too, will eventually have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. In particular, Social Security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor."
09-15-2003 12:23 PM ET (US)
Paul Krugman points out the problem tax cuts pose. On our current course of paying by borrowing we are headed on the path to a fiscal trainwreck. Either we repeal the tax cuts,
severely reduce social security and medicare payments, or we become the next Argentina (a third world country saddled with crippling debt). I vote for repealing the tax cuts and presevring our future.
Krugman:
"Nobody likes paying taxes . . . But most Americans also care a lot about the things taxes pay for. All politicians say they're for public education; almost all of them also say they support a strong national defense, maintaining Social Security and, if anything, expanding the coverage of Medicare. When the "guy on the news" asks whether we can afford a tax cut, he's asking whether, after yet another tax cut goes through, there will be enough money to pay for those things. And the answer is no.
But it's very difficult to get that answer across in modern American politics, which has been dominated for 25 years by a crusade against taxes.
I don't use the word "crusade" lightly. The advocates of tax cuts are relentless, even fanatical. An indication of the movement's fervor -- and of its political power -- came during the Iraq war. War is expensive and is almost always accompanied by tax increases. But not in 2003. "Nothing is more important in the face of a war," declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, "than cutting taxes." And sure enough, taxes were cut, not just in a time of war but also in the face of record budget deficits. Nor will it be easy to reverse those tax cuts: the tax-cut movement has convinced many Americans -- like Tinsley -- that everybody still pays far too much in taxes.
A result of the tax-cut crusade is that there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect to receive from the government and the revenues government collect. This mismatch is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: teachers and policemen are being laid off and children are being denied health insurance. The federal government can mask its problems for a while, by running huge budget deficits, but it, too, will eventually have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. In particular, Social Security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor."
Lee P 1172
09-15-2003 12:55 PM ET (US)
Keith I just saw you on Ann's blog buddy. Keep up the good work at the debate. We run off copies of this and post it on the billboard at the libary and at work. You have done a fine job here.
I'm leaning toward Clark at a prime runner if he runs, because he has a great military background.
09-15-2003 12:55 PM ET (US)
Keith I just saw you on Ann's blog buddy. Keep up the good work at the debate. We run off copies of this and post it on the billboard at the libary and at work. You have done a fine job here.
I'm leaning toward Clark at a prime runner if he runs, because he has a great military background.
Keith Brekhus 1173
09-15-2003 01:38 PM ET (US)
Recall vote in California postponed by appeals court.....
Just when you thought things couldn't get any stranger...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._el_gu/davis_recall
09-15-2003 01:38 PM ET (US)
Recall vote in California postponed by appeals court.....
Just when you thought things couldn't get any stranger...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._el_gu/davis_recall
Keith Brekhus 1174
09-15-2003 03:05 PM ET (US)
John Kerry's communications director resigns. The Kerry campaign has had real difficulty countering Dean's momentum. This could portend positive changes in the Kerry camp's strategy or it could signal that the Kerry campaign is falling apart at the seams and imploding from internal division. Time will tell, but I am guessing things are not well in the Kerry strategy room.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...onal1339EDT0598.DTL
Kerry's communications director leaves campaign amid shakeup rumors
RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer Monday, September 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(09-15) 10:39 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
John Kerry's communications director has resigned over differences in the direction of the Democrat's presidential campaign.
Chris Lehane's departure comes amid speculation of a wider shake-up in the Kerry campaign, which has been torn by internal fights and a lack of public support from the candidate.
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator once considered the leading contender in a nine-person field, has seen his campaign eclipsed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
"John Kerry is a great American," Lehane said in a statement confirming his resignation. "He has assembled a great team to take on George W. Bush and I wish him the best of luck as the campaign goes forward."
Lehane was a key adviser and spokesman for the campaign, though he was not on the payroll. That move was planned later this fall. He resigned last week.
Campaign officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lehane told them he was leaving over philosophical differences with Kerry. They said Lehane, who was Al Gore's press secretary in the 2000 race and worked for President Clinton, was among a cadre of Kerry aides who believed that Kerry ran too cautiously against the threat posed by Dean.
Campaign strategist Bob Shrum and others urged Kerry to remain above the fray in an attempt to look presidential. Kerry avoided confrontation with Dean in the first two debates, but his rhetoric on the campaign trail has become more critical of the former governor.
Dean leads Kerry in the latest polls in New Hampshire, an early voting state that neither candidate can afford to lose. His front-runner status lost, Kerry recently dropped out of contention for at least one key union endorsement and is scrambling to shore up support in Congress and among party donors.
Though Kerry has insisted he's satisfied with his team, his less-than-firm denials of a shake-up have fueled rumors and created angst among his staff.
Early this month, as he formally began his campaign, Kerry told reporters he "reserved the right" to make changes and gave a mixed assessment of his staff's performance. Trying to quell talk of a staff purge, he issued a statement saying there would be "no changes."
The statement, drafted with Lehane's assistance, was meant to be the last word, but Kerry has backpedaled from it. "Those weren't precisely my words. They were the words of a press release sent out," Kerry told The Boston Globe in a story published Sunday.
Several campaign sources said at the time that Kerry read and approved the document.
Kerry also told the Globe he would add people to "plug holes" but declined to be specific.
Campaign officials said there are long-standing plans to broaden Kerry's team, particularly with allies from Massachusetts with presidential campaign experience, but that's not necessarily an indictment of his current team, headed by campaign manager Jim Jordan.
Jordan said of Lehane: "He would've been a hugely valuable addition to the staff, and we're all disappointed. We'll plug the hole soon enough."
09-15-2003 03:05 PM ET (US)
John Kerry's communications director resigns. The Kerry campaign has had real difficulty countering Dean's momentum. This could portend positive changes in the Kerry camp's strategy or it could signal that the Kerry campaign is falling apart at the seams and imploding from internal division. Time will tell, but I am guessing things are not well in the Kerry strategy room.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...onal1339EDT0598.DTL
Kerry's communications director leaves campaign amid shakeup rumors
RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer Monday, September 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(09-15) 10:39 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
John Kerry's communications director has resigned over differences in the direction of the Democrat's presidential campaign.
Chris Lehane's departure comes amid speculation of a wider shake-up in the Kerry campaign, which has been torn by internal fights and a lack of public support from the candidate.
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator once considered the leading contender in a nine-person field, has seen his campaign eclipsed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
"John Kerry is a great American," Lehane said in a statement confirming his resignation. "He has assembled a great team to take on George W. Bush and I wish him the best of luck as the campaign goes forward."
Lehane was a key adviser and spokesman for the campaign, though he was not on the payroll. That move was planned later this fall. He resigned last week.
Campaign officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lehane told them he was leaving over philosophical differences with Kerry. They said Lehane, who was Al Gore's press secretary in the 2000 race and worked for President Clinton, was among a cadre of Kerry aides who believed that Kerry ran too cautiously against the threat posed by Dean.
Campaign strategist Bob Shrum and others urged Kerry to remain above the fray in an attempt to look presidential. Kerry avoided confrontation with Dean in the first two debates, but his rhetoric on the campaign trail has become more critical of the former governor.
Dean leads Kerry in the latest polls in New Hampshire, an early voting state that neither candidate can afford to lose. His front-runner status lost, Kerry recently dropped out of contention for at least one key union endorsement and is scrambling to shore up support in Congress and among party donors.
Though Kerry has insisted he's satisfied with his team, his less-than-firm denials of a shake-up have fueled rumors and created angst among his staff.
Early this month, as he formally began his campaign, Kerry told reporters he "reserved the right" to make changes and gave a mixed assessment of his staff's performance. Trying to quell talk of a staff purge, he issued a statement saying there would be "no changes."
The statement, drafted with Lehane's assistance, was meant to be the last word, but Kerry has backpedaled from it. "Those weren't precisely my words. They were the words of a press release sent out," Kerry told The Boston Globe in a story published Sunday.
Several campaign sources said at the time that Kerry read and approved the document.
Kerry also told the Globe he would add people to "plug holes" but declined to be specific.
Campaign officials said there are long-standing plans to broaden Kerry's team, particularly with allies from Massachusetts with presidential campaign experience, but that's not necessarily an indictment of his current team, headed by campaign manager Jim Jordan.
Jordan said of Lehane: "He would've been a hugely valuable addition to the staff, and we're all disappointed. We'll plug the hole soon enough."
Keith Brekhus 1175
09-15-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark is probably in.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...5/ap_on_el_pr/clark
09-15-2003 03:49 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark is probably in.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...5/ap_on_el_pr/clark
Ann Stewart 1176
09-15-2003 04:43 PM ET (US)
Keith that is so cool about the Recall vote in California being postponed.
Do you think Clark has a good chance? Lee told me he like him because he has military experience. I like Dean, because he’s a doctor. I think a doctor would know best about medical reform and healthcare issues, but Clark is look’in like a strong contender. How many of you think so?
Does anybody know where Clark stands on the War issues of Iraq? Is he or was he for it or against it?
09-15-2003 04:43 PM ET (US)
Keith that is so cool about the Recall vote in California being postponed.
Do you think Clark has a good chance? Lee told me he like him because he has military experience. I like Dean, because he’s a doctor. I think a doctor would know best about medical reform and healthcare issues, but Clark is look’in like a strong contender. How many of you think so?
Does anybody know where Clark stands on the War issues of Iraq? Is he or was he for it or against it?
Keith Brekhus 1177
09-15-2003 04:56 PM ET (US)
Clark was opposed to the Iraq war even though he is a general. He will be a strong candidate. Dean will have a huge fundraising quarter which should keep him on top for now, but Clark will probably vault to a top tier candidate right away. I think Clark's entry hurts Kerry the most and Gephardt the least of the current candidates.
personally, Dean is my first choice, Clark second, and Kerry third.
09-15-2003 04:56 PM ET (US)
Clark was opposed to the Iraq war even though he is a general. He will be a strong candidate. Dean will have a huge fundraising quarter which should keep him on top for now, but Clark will probably vault to a top tier candidate right away. I think Clark's entry hurts Kerry the most and Gephardt the least of the current candidates.
personally, Dean is my first choice, Clark second, and Kerry third.
Keith Brekhus 1178
09-15-2003 05:04 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-15-2003 05:04 PM
Clark's resume and position on the issues....he needs more specifics on the environment and other domestic issues but generally I agree with him on the positions he has taken so far.
http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html
General Wesley K. Clark, Arkansas - Democrat Retired four-star army general Wesley Clark has made visits to New Hampshire, North Carolina and other key states in 2002 to endorse local Democratic candidates. He followed that up with meetings with top national and Iowa party leaders.
He is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy of West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark was a White House Fellow in 1975-1976 and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Management and Budget. He has also served as an Assistant Professor of Social Science at the United States Military Academy.
Clark served in the Vietnam War where he was shot in the leg, hip, shoulder and hand. He was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 10 July 1997 through 3 May 2000. He was also the Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. He would be the first General since Andrew Jackson to run for President a Democrat.
He and his wife Gert live in Washington, DC. Clark, like the US president under whom he served, Bill Clinton, grew up without a father in Arkansas.
Taxes and budget:
Said he would have opposed Bush's tax cuts. He said "they were not efficient" in stimulating the economy and were "not fair" because they were tilted toward the wealthiest Americans.
"You’ve got to put the country back on a fiscally sound basis, whether that is in suspending parts [of the tax cuts] that haven’t been implemented or rescinding parts, that’d have to be looked at... Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services. The American people on the one hand don’t like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us."
Clark says he supports many aspects of former president Clinton's economic policy, especially "the basic policy of trying to reduce public-sector debt, which produced a lot of confidence in financial communities around the world."
Foreign Affairs:
Clark, a retired four-star General, would give the Democrats added credibility in criticizing the Bush approach to foreign (espcially military) affairs. The Washington Post reported on Clark's positions: Unless the United States can bring a strong coalition into a war against Iraq, it may put itself in greater danger. The chief threat to U.S. security right now is al Qaeda, he argues. Disarming Iraq is important too, he says, but it's not the most urgent task.
"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."
The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. ... We are the embodiment of the Enlightenment. If we're true to those principles, then it's a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."
"This is an administration which really hasn't respected our allies. If you really want allies, you've got to listen to their opinions, you've got to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues."
He’s on the record as opposing the trade embargo with Cuba.
The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."
Clark worries that the Iraq policy is fatally flawed because it's likely to create new recruits for America's main enemy -- the Islamic fundamentalists who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. He recalls a military dictum from his days as commander of the Army's National Training Center: "There are only two kinds of plans -- ones that might work and ones that won't work. You have to avoid a plan with a fatal flaw."
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clark said there was "a certain amount of hype" in the intelligence presented to the public before the war. Asked whether Bush had misled the country, he replied, "I think that's to be determined." He added, "It was never revealed what the imminence of the threat was."
Security, terrorism, civil liberties
"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus, which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed."
"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."
"I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at."
Abortion Issues:
Clark told Michael Tomasky of the American Prospect in an interview that he favors both abortion rights and affirmative action.
Affirmative action:
"[From my childhood in Arkansas,] I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance. I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to."
"I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action. Whether [the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan] is the right plan or not, and whether that should be 10 points, not 20 points, whether it should be, let’s say, an income level cutoff there at which you don’t get the points if you’re above a certain income, you can tool with the plan. But what you can’t have is you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination. There is, there has been and the reason so many of us filed [an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan] is we saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces."
Education and healthcare
"I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team," he said. "Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work."
Environmental Issues:
"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize."
09-15-2003 05:04 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-15-2003 05:04 PM
Clark's resume and position on the issues....he needs more specifics on the environment and other domestic issues but generally I agree with him on the positions he has taken so far.
http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html
General Wesley K. Clark, Arkansas - Democrat Retired four-star army general Wesley Clark has made visits to New Hampshire, North Carolina and other key states in 2002 to endorse local Democratic candidates. He followed that up with meetings with top national and Iowa party leaders.
He is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy of West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark was a White House Fellow in 1975-1976 and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Management and Budget. He has also served as an Assistant Professor of Social Science at the United States Military Academy.
Clark served in the Vietnam War where he was shot in the leg, hip, shoulder and hand. He was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 10 July 1997 through 3 May 2000. He was also the Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. He would be the first General since Andrew Jackson to run for President a Democrat.
He and his wife Gert live in Washington, DC. Clark, like the US president under whom he served, Bill Clinton, grew up without a father in Arkansas.
Taxes and budget:
Said he would have opposed Bush's tax cuts. He said "they were not efficient" in stimulating the economy and were "not fair" because they were tilted toward the wealthiest Americans.
"You’ve got to put the country back on a fiscally sound basis, whether that is in suspending parts [of the tax cuts] that haven’t been implemented or rescinding parts, that’d have to be looked at... Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services. The American people on the one hand don’t like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us."
Clark says he supports many aspects of former president Clinton's economic policy, especially "the basic policy of trying to reduce public-sector debt, which produced a lot of confidence in financial communities around the world."
Foreign Affairs:
Clark, a retired four-star General, would give the Democrats added credibility in criticizing the Bush approach to foreign (espcially military) affairs. The Washington Post reported on Clark's positions: Unless the United States can bring a strong coalition into a war against Iraq, it may put itself in greater danger. The chief threat to U.S. security right now is al Qaeda, he argues. Disarming Iraq is important too, he says, but it's not the most urgent task.
"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."
The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. ... We are the embodiment of the Enlightenment. If we're true to those principles, then it's a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."
"This is an administration which really hasn't respected our allies. If you really want allies, you've got to listen to their opinions, you've got to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues."
He’s on the record as opposing the trade embargo with Cuba.
The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."
Clark worries that the Iraq policy is fatally flawed because it's likely to create new recruits for America's main enemy -- the Islamic fundamentalists who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. He recalls a military dictum from his days as commander of the Army's National Training Center: "There are only two kinds of plans -- ones that might work and ones that won't work. You have to avoid a plan with a fatal flaw."
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clark said there was "a certain amount of hype" in the intelligence presented to the public before the war. Asked whether Bush had misled the country, he replied, "I think that's to be determined." He added, "It was never revealed what the imminence of the threat was."
Security, terrorism, civil liberties
"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus, which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed."
"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."
"I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at."
Abortion Issues:
Clark told Michael Tomasky of the American Prospect in an interview that he favors both abortion rights and affirmative action.
Affirmative action:
"[From my childhood in Arkansas,] I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance. I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to."
"I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action. Whether [the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan] is the right plan or not, and whether that should be 10 points, not 20 points, whether it should be, let’s say, an income level cutoff there at which you don’t get the points if you’re above a certain income, you can tool with the plan. But what you can’t have is you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination. There is, there has been and the reason so many of us filed [an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan] is we saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces."
Education and healthcare
"I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team," he said. "Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work."
Environmental Issues:
"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize."
Ann Stewart 1179
09-15-2003 05:30 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-15-2003 05:30 PM
Thanks for the information Keith. That answers all my questions...and I agree with you on Dean is my first choice, Clark second, and Kerry third. I think it would be great to have a doctor in the Whitehouse. Has that ever happened before? Have we ever had an MD in there as President?
09-15-2003 05:30 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-15-2003 05:30 PM
Thanks for the information Keith. That answers all my questions...and I agree with you on Dean is my first choice, Clark second, and Kerry third. I think it would be great to have a doctor in the Whitehouse. Has that ever happened before? Have we ever had an MD in there as President?
sindhu kumar 1180
09-15-2003 06:07 PM ET (US)
we have never had a president and first lady who are both physicians in the white house before. so this will be the first time to have president physician (howard dean) and first lady physician (judith steinberg AKA Mrs. howard dean).
09-15-2003 06:07 PM ET (US)
we have never had a president and first lady who are both physicians in the white house before. so this will be the first time to have president physician (howard dean) and first lady physician (judith steinberg AKA Mrs. howard dean).
Ann Stewart 1181
09-15-2003 06:20 PM ET (US)
You know Sindhu and Keith, That would be new and interesting to see how MD's would do in the Whitehouse.
09-15-2003 06:20 PM ET (US)
You know Sindhu and Keith, That would be new and interesting to see how MD's would do in the Whitehouse.
sindhu kumar 1182
09-15-2003 07:01 PM ET (US)
i am very sure of that it would make for an interesting and stimulating conversation.
09-15-2003 07:01 PM ET (US)
i am very sure of that it would make for an interesting and stimulating conversation.
sindhu kumar 1183
09-16-2003 12:00 AM ET (US)
then they could also make a good decision about how to fix the health care system
09-16-2003 12:00 AM ET (US)
then they could also make a good decision about how to fix the health care system
doug in indiana 1184
09-16-2003 01:20 AM ET (US)
Kerry's communications director quits
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/....aide.ap/index.html
09-16-2003 01:20 AM ET (US)
Kerry's communications director quits
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/....aide.ap/index.html
Jennifer 1185
09-16-2003 01:29 AM ET (US)
All the more reason to vote for Bush. These Dem's don't have their act together.
09-16-2003 01:29 AM ET (US)
All the more reason to vote for Bush. These Dem's don't have their act together.
Daniel 1187
09-16-2003 12:30 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 12:31 PM
If we want to win this election we must unite to best bush. He has lied to us many times and people still love him. In order to win this election we must fight harder than we did in 1992. My only wish is that Clinton could run again so he could beat bush with a larger margin than he beat his father. Our only chance to win this election is with Kerry. Let us all unite and take one of the worst presidents in history out of office!
09-16-2003 12:30 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 12:31 PM
If we want to win this election we must unite to best bush. He has lied to us many times and people still love him. In order to win this election we must fight harder than we did in 1992. My only wish is that Clinton could run again so he could beat bush with a larger margin than he beat his father. Our only chance to win this election is with Kerry. Let us all unite and take one of the worst presidents in history out of office!
bluets 1188
09-16-2003 01:15 PM ET (US)
Since my original post supporting Dean a few months ago, I've largely been a lurker. I ran across an interesting article today that is worthwhile sharing with this group.
Three Easy Pieces for Any Decent American
September 15, 2003
-Michael Moore (who brought us "Bowling for Columbine")
There are many otherwise decent Americans who are either still on the fence about George W. Bush or they actually profess to like the man. They are the ones who make up the 58% approval ratings and the 64% who say they still believe the war was a good idea. You know these people well. They work next to you, or they sit in the classroom next to you, or they may even be sitting at your kitchen table right now!
.... you can read the rest at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...sageDate=2003-09-15
Definitely a good read especially for fence-sitters.
09-16-2003 01:15 PM ET (US)
Since my original post supporting Dean a few months ago, I've largely been a lurker. I ran across an interesting article today that is worthwhile sharing with this group.
Three Easy Pieces for Any Decent American
September 15, 2003
-Michael Moore (who brought us "Bowling for Columbine")
There are many otherwise decent Americans who are either still on the fence about George W. Bush or they actually profess to like the man. They are the ones who make up the 58% approval ratings and the 64% who say they still believe the war was a good idea. You know these people well. They work next to you, or they sit in the classroom next to you, or they may even be sitting at your kitchen table right now!
.... you can read the rest at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...sageDate=2003-09-15
Definitely a good read especially for fence-sitters.
Matt 1189
09-16-2003 01:53 PM ET (US)
Bush has lost much of his support. He dug his own hole. The polls are down on him for a good reason.
09-16-2003 01:53 PM ET (US)
Bush has lost much of his support. He dug his own hole. The polls are down on him for a good reason.
Matt 1190
09-16-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)
I don't like how the press caters to Bush. You never see pticures of american dead soldiers show on TV like you do overseas. Bush controls the press.
09-16-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)
I don't like how the press caters to Bush. You never see pticures of american dead soldiers show on TV like you do overseas. Bush controls the press.
Keith Brekhus 1191
09-16-2003 02:28 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 02:29 PM
While points two and three are worth noting, I don't see how the first part about Laura and George having a laugh on 9/11 is so damning. In fact it makes them look human. Sure 9/11 was a horribly tragic day, but some people find things to laugh about even in the face of enormous tragedy, and some laugh just to cope. I have to confess I've gotten the giggles at the funeral of a loved one before...I don't think that makes me insensitive, it just makes me human.
I say attack Bush's record--there is plenty of red meat there to sink your teeth into, but don't attack Dubya personally as a bad person--that sort of thing could backfire, especially since Americans seem to WANT to like the guy despite his dismal track record.
09-16-2003 02:28 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 02:29 PM
While points two and three are worth noting, I don't see how the first part about Laura and George having a laugh on 9/11 is so damning. In fact it makes them look human. Sure 9/11 was a horribly tragic day, but some people find things to laugh about even in the face of enormous tragedy, and some laugh just to cope. I have to confess I've gotten the giggles at the funeral of a loved one before...I don't think that makes me insensitive, it just makes me human.
I say attack Bush's record--there is plenty of red meat there to sink your teeth into, but don't attack Dubya personally as a bad person--that sort of thing could backfire, especially since Americans seem to WANT to like the guy despite his dismal track record.
sindhu kumar 1192
09-16-2003 03:12 PM ET (US)
i agree with you keith. i dont think that it is fair to attack president bush's personal character. it is alright to attack him on the policies and legislation that he passed.
09-16-2003 03:12 PM ET (US)
i agree with you keith. i dont think that it is fair to attack president bush's personal character. it is alright to attack him on the policies and legislation that he passed.
Ann Stewart 1193
09-16-2003 04:06 PM ET (US)
Jen, Daniel, Rena, Bullets, Matt, Keith and Sindhu welcome folks.
Bullets you have been so sorely missed.
Daniel I know you believe in Kerry, I think he's having some hard times though with a staff members quitting on him, can you tell me about that?
Matt thanks for all the comments. I do remember the press reporting many deaths of soldiers, they may not have put the dead bodies on TV, but I've heard it reported many times. I do think Bush does play the press well, because people like Donald Rumsfeld will constantly criticized the press over the smallest little thing. I think that is so they can control the press. That is sad. I think Rumsfeld is rude man, he should be more respectful to people in the press. I have heard him degraded the press so many times. That’s probably because he wants them to report only what he wants shown on TV.
Kieth, Sindhu I agree totally if you can’t laugh about stuff sometimes, you might as well go ahead and die, cause life wouldn’t be worth the liv’in with out joy and happiness in our lives. I’m a happy duck most of the time. Quack Quack!!!
09-16-2003 04:06 PM ET (US)
Jen, Daniel, Rena, Bullets, Matt, Keith and Sindhu welcome folks.
Bullets you have been so sorely missed.
Daniel I know you believe in Kerry, I think he's having some hard times though with a staff members quitting on him, can you tell me about that?
Matt thanks for all the comments. I do remember the press reporting many deaths of soldiers, they may not have put the dead bodies on TV, but I've heard it reported many times. I do think Bush does play the press well, because people like Donald Rumsfeld will constantly criticized the press over the smallest little thing. I think that is so they can control the press. That is sad. I think Rumsfeld is rude man, he should be more respectful to people in the press. I have heard him degraded the press so many times. That’s probably because he wants them to report only what he wants shown on TV.
Kieth, Sindhu I agree totally if you can’t laugh about stuff sometimes, you might as well go ahead and die, cause life wouldn’t be worth the liv’in with out joy and happiness in our lives. I’m a happy duck most of the time. Quack Quack!!!
Keith Brekhus 1194
09-16-2003 05:35 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark will be a factor if this poll is any indication. Lieberman seems to be suffering the most, and then Kerry. Don't be surprised if it comes down to Dean, Gephardt, and Clark.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030915.asp
09-16-2003 05:35 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark will be a factor if this poll is any indication. Lieberman seems to be suffering the most, and then Kerry. Don't be surprised if it comes down to Dean, Gephardt, and Clark.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030915.asp
Ann Stewart 1195
09-16-2003 05:47 PM ET (US)
Keith...I sure hope Gephardt don't get to high in the race. His stand on issues and war just don't sit well with me. Just my opinion, and I want to have to look at his face for 4 years. I know that sounds mean, but I haven't heard anything good about him from the people in my little world.
09-16-2003 05:47 PM ET (US)
Keith...I sure hope Gephardt don't get to high in the race. His stand on issues and war just don't sit well with me. Just my opinion, and I want to have to look at his face for 4 years. I know that sounds mean, but I haven't heard anything good about him from the people in my little world.
Keith Brekhus 1196
09-16-2003 05:57 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 05:59 PM
I don't think Gephardt can beat Bush and I don't care for either him or Lieberman as the Democratic nominee. They are both dull candidates, they both supported the war, they both lack backbone, and they both seem mired in the past campaigning methods of greasing a few wealthy donors and securing endorsements from select interest groups rather than having real grassrooots appeal.
Dean (and Clark) are dynamic inspiring candidates who offer progressive change and vision, and who had the backbone and courage to oppose Bush's war and his economic policies.
As far as party insiders go, Kerry is a much better choice than either Gephardt or Lieberman. I'm from Gephardt's state and I wouldn't vote for him over Dean, Clark, or Kerry.
09-16-2003 05:57 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 09-16-2003 05:59 PM
I don't think Gephardt can beat Bush and I don't care for either him or Lieberman as the Democratic nominee. They are both dull candidates, they both supported the war, they both lack backbone, and they both seem mired in the past campaigning methods of greasing a few wealthy donors and securing endorsements from select interest groups rather than having real grassrooots appeal.
Dean (and Clark) are dynamic inspiring candidates who offer progressive change and vision, and who had the backbone and courage to oppose Bush's war and his economic policies.
As far as party insiders go, Kerry is a much better choice than either Gephardt or Lieberman. I'm from Gephardt's state and I wouldn't vote for him over Dean, Clark, or Kerry.
Keith Brekhus 1199
09-16-2003 06:37 PM ET (US)
My political prediction for this week:
Chris LeHane, who just resigned as John Kerry's communications director will show up as a key player in Wesley Clark's campaign team. I would bet money on it.
09-16-2003 06:37 PM ET (US)
My political prediction for this week:
Chris LeHane, who just resigned as John Kerry's communications director will show up as a key player in Wesley Clark's campaign team. I would bet money on it.
Ann Stewart 1200
09-17-2003 01:21 AM ET (US)
Keith that would be so interesting if Chris LeHane did that. I will send you a box of cookies if you get that one right too.
09-17-2003 01:21 AM ET (US)
Keith that would be so interesting if Chris LeHane did that. I will send you a box of cookies if you get that one right too.
Michael Bohannon 1201
09-17-2003 04:26 AM ET (US)
I am doing a research paper for my senior project and I thought I would get some comments from you guys. My research topic is pretty broad right now, but it is very relevant to you guys. I am studying the effects of the Internet on campaigning and voter participation in general. Surprisingly, this topic has been researched by many others and the consensus is that as of now the Internet is good for forming political discussions, but still ineffective for campaigning. Furthermore, the digital-divide doesn't allow for total participation. In other words, the Internet is not that accessible to low-income voters. My question is whether the government has a duty or a role to make the Internet more accessible to low-income families, especially during election time. There is a law that makes it unfair to provide a format or mechanism that makes voting easier for one segment of the population and not supply that same format for another segment of the population. Shouldn't the same be true for access to information on candidates and what they support? A workable democracy can only survive through an informed and active population. And finally, will there ever be on-line voting? Thanks for any input.
09-17-2003 04:26 AM ET (US)
I am doing a research paper for my senior project and I thought I would get some comments from you guys. My research topic is pretty broad right now, but it is very relevant to you guys. I am studying the effects of the Internet on campaigning and voter participation in general. Surprisingly, this topic has been researched by many others and the consensus is that as of now the Internet is good for forming political discussions, but still ineffective for campaigning. Furthermore, the digital-divide doesn't allow for total participation. In other words, the Internet is not that accessible to low-income voters. My question is whether the government has a duty or a role to make the Internet more accessible to low-income families, especially during election time. There is a law that makes it unfair to provide a format or mechanism that makes voting easier for one segment of the population and not supply that same format for another segment of the population. Shouldn't the same be true for access to information on candidates and what they support? A workable democracy can only survive through an informed and active population. And finally, will there ever be on-line voting? Thanks for any input.
Keith Brekhus 1202
09-17-2003 10:30 AM ET (US)
A little spin on Clark's entry from blogger Billmon at Whiskey Bar. A lot of bloggers today (See daily kos for example) are suggesting that Clark was urged to enter by none other than Bill Clinton, and by others who want to stop Dean from getting the nomination.
I'm not sure what to make of that theory--I'll wait and see before making any firm judgement on Clark, but I don't think running his campaign with veterans of the Gore 2000 staff is the way to go. The Dean/Trippi model is the one that is proving its success day after day.
--Keith Brekhus--
(Billmon's comments below)
It appears Wesley Clark will enter the race for the Democratic nomination today -- with consequences that can only be guessed at.
I suppose you could say that it's just the latest stratagem of the Anybody But Dean movement. With the Kerry campaign apparently on life support, the neolib fleas are migrating to a new Big Dog:
Clark is surrounding himself with key operatives from the Clinton-Gore White House and campaigns. Among those expected to play key roles are Eli J. Segal, a former Clinton administration official who was chairman of Clinton's 1992 campaign; Donnie Fowler, former vice president Al Gore's 2000 field director; Ron Klain, a strategist for Gore; and Mark Fabiani, a communications specialist for Clinton and Gore. Bruce Lindsey, a close Clinton friend and a lawyer in the Clinton White House. Mickey Kantor, who played a key role in the Clinton-Gore campaign and was Clinton's commerce secretary, will also be helping Clark.
The resignation of Chris Lehene as Kerry's communications director suggests that some of the other Clinton/Gore fleas may be switching animals shortly.
As you can probably tell, I don't like these people very much. To me, they represent everything that's wrong with the modern Democratic Party. They're sleazy (Kantor alone is a drugstore counter full of conflicts of interest), privileged, arrogant and, above all, comfortable with the existing political and economic power structure.
It's not so much that the Clintonites are Democrats in Name Only (nobody every accused Bill Clinton of lacking the partisan spirit) but their political careers have been built, in a sense, on the decline of the Democratic Party. Their rise to power was explicitly based on the premise that Reagan-style conservatism can't be beaten, and so must be imitated.
I suppose this is a normal part of the dialetical process. When you win as many times as the conservatives have won over the past 25 years, it tends to have an evolutionary effect on the opposition.
Courage, conviction and honesty haven't necessarily been beneficial qualities for ambitious Democrats in our Republican Age. Intellectual nimbleness, deviousness and an acute sensitivity to danger, on the other hand, have usually served them well. Survival of the fittest and all of that.
And so you have the Democratic establishment in the late summer of the baby boom generation -- intimidated by the anger and fanaticism of the right, domesticated by years of selective political breeding, and increasingly nourished at the same corporate feeding trough as the Republicans.
But if those are the backers, what about the backee? To be honest, I don't know that much about Clark -- just what I've read in various accounts of the Kosovo War, plus having a chance to see him in action at an economic conference in Europe earlier this year.
I will stipulate that Wesley Clark on his worst day -- on his worst day with a brain aneurism -- could do a better job of running the United States than the current maladministration. But I can't say I was enormously impressed by what I've read or seen.
I can only assume the Clinton clique (like the entire Democratic establishment) is acting out of panic, or something close to it. The fleas need a dog to ride. For whatever reason -- practical, political or ideological -- they're not willing to take Dean out for a test bite. And the other mutts have the mange.
If Clark can quickly pull together an effective campaign organization -- or, more precisely, reconstitute the old Clinton-Gore organization -- he could make this a race. In fact, that would appear to be the only remaining scenario for denyin Dean the nomination.
But this isn't the brilliant, improvisational Clinton team of 1992. It's not even the smooth, well-oiled campaign machine that won in 1996. Clark's emerging inner circle looks more like the bloated, bureacratic gang that lumbered through the 2000 primaries with Al Gore, and then blew an election that should have been won easily.
I gotta say: As an insurgent Dem, and a Dean supporter, I still like our chances.
09-17-2003 10:30 AM ET (US)
A little spin on Clark's entry from blogger Billmon at Whiskey Bar. A lot of bloggers today (See daily kos for example) are suggesting that Clark was urged to enter by none other than Bill Clinton, and by others who want to stop Dean from getting the nomination.
I'm not sure what to make of that theory--I'll wait and see before making any firm judgement on Clark, but I don't think running his campaign with veterans of the Gore 2000 staff is the way to go. The Dean/Trippi model is the one that is proving its success day after day.
--Keith Brekhus--
(Billmon's comments below)
It appears Wesley Clark will enter the race for the Democratic nomination today -- with consequences that can only be guessed at.
I suppose you could say that it's just the latest stratagem of the Anybody But Dean movement. With the Kerry campaign apparently on life support, the neolib fleas are migrating to a new Big Dog:
Clark is surrounding himself with key operatives from the Clinton-Gore White House and campaigns. Among those expected to play key roles are Eli J. Segal, a former Clinton administration official who was chairman of Clinton's 1992 campaign; Donnie Fowler, former vice president Al Gore's 2000 field director; Ron Klain, a strategist for Gore; and Mark Fabiani, a communications specialist for Clinton and Gore. Bruce Lindsey, a close Clinton friend and a lawyer in the Clinton White House. Mickey Kantor, who played a key role in the Clinton-Gore campaign and was Clinton's commerce secretary, will also be helping Clark.
The resignation of Chris Lehene as Kerry's communications director suggests that some of the other Clinton/Gore fleas may be switching animals shortly.
As you can probably tell, I don't like these people very much. To me, they represent everything that's wrong with the modern Democratic Party. They're sleazy (Kantor alone is a drugstore counter full of conflicts of interest), privileged, arrogant and, above all, comfortable with the existing political and economic power structure.
It's not so much that the Clintonites are Democrats in Name Only (nobody every accused Bill Clinton of lacking the partisan spirit) but their political careers have been built, in a sense, on the decline of the Democratic Party. Their rise to power was explicitly based on the premise that Reagan-style conservatism can't be beaten, and so must be imitated.
I suppose this is a normal part of the dialetical process. When you win as many times as the conservatives have won over the past 25 years, it tends to have an evolutionary effect on the opposition.
Courage, conviction and honesty haven't necessarily been beneficial qualities for ambitious Democrats in our Republican Age. Intellectual nimbleness, deviousness and an acute sensitivity to danger, on the other hand, have usually served them well. Survival of the fittest and all of that.
And so you have the Democratic establishment in the late summer of the baby boom generation -- intimidated by the anger and fanaticism of the right, domesticated by years of selective political breeding, and increasingly nourished at the same corporate feeding trough as the Republicans.
But if those are the backers, what about the backee? To be honest, I don't know that much about Clark -- just what I've read in various accounts of the Kosovo War, plus having a chance to see him in action at an economic conference in Europe earlier this year.
I will stipulate that Wesley Clark on his worst day -- on his worst day with a brain aneurism -- could do a better job of running the United States than the current maladministration. But I can't say I was enormously impressed by what I've read or seen.
I can only assume the Clinton clique (like the entire Democratic establishment) is acting out of panic, or something close to it. The fleas need a dog to ride. For whatever reason -- practical, political or ideological -- they're not willing to take Dean out for a test bite. And the other mutts have the mange.
If Clark can quickly pull together an effective campaign organization -- or, more precisely, reconstitute the old Clinton-Gore organization -- he could make this a race. In fact, that would appear to be the only remaining scenario for denyin Dean the nomination.
But this isn't the brilliant, improvisational Clinton team of 1992. It's not even the smooth, well-oiled campaign machine that won in 1996. Clark's emerging inner circle looks more like the bloated, bureacratic gang that lumbered through the 2000 primaries with Al Gore, and then blew an election that should have been won easily.
I gotta say: As an insurgent Dem, and a Dean supporter, I still like our chances.
Will Parker 1203
09-17-2003 02:21 PM ET (US)
Clark will state he's in for the race today. It's all over the news.
09-17-2003 02:21 PM ET (US)
Clark will state he's in for the race today. It's all over the news.
doug in indiana 1204
09-17-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
---- George W. Bush
09-17-2003 03:30 PM ET (US)
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
---- George W. Bush
Ann Stewart 1206
09-17-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
I got this from Kerry's camp it was in my email box.
Dear Ann,
It’s time to HAMMER George Bush on the issues vital to Americans: jobs, security, education and the environment.
Bush raises $1,000,000 by asking 10 cronies to raise $100,000 – and he rewards them with Cabinet appointments, corporate welfare, tax breaks for sending American jobs overseas, and the influence to rewrite laws that protect our labor force and environment.
John Kerry is raising $1,000,000 by asking 20,000 supporters to send $50 each (our average is $75) and he’ll reward YOU by creating jobs, cutting taxes of the middle class and working Americans, giving incentives to companies that create jobs for Americans, and protecting our children’s education and environment. John Kerry has won four US Senate campaigns – all without accepting special interest PAC money.
09-17-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
I got this from Kerry's camp it was in my email box.
Dear Ann,
It’s time to HAMMER George Bush on the issues vital to Americans: jobs, security, education and the environment.
Bush raises $1,000,000 by asking 10 cronies to raise $100,000 – and he rewards them with Cabinet appointments, corporate welfare, tax breaks for sending American jobs overseas, and the influence to rewrite laws that protect our labor force and environment.
John Kerry is raising $1,000,000 by asking 20,000 supporters to send $50 each (our average is $75) and he’ll reward YOU by creating jobs, cutting taxes of the middle class and working Americans, giving incentives to companies that create jobs for Americans, and protecting our children’s education and environment. John Kerry has won four US Senate campaigns – all without accepting special interest PAC money.
Charles in Montana 1207
09-17-2003 07:38 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark has approached this run for the whitehouse in a very coy manner. He wouldn't even say if he was a democrat or republican. I think he waited to see if the power brokers would back him. He is backed by Clinton and the DLC. Nobody like the outsider Howard is exceptable to these people. So it is Bush or the DLC? Nope, we are sticking with people powered Howard. On Clark, check this out. http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
09-17-2003 07:38 PM ET (US)
Wesley Clark has approached this run for the whitehouse in a very coy manner. He wouldn't even say if he was a democrat or republican. I think he waited to see if the power brokers would back him. He is backed by Clinton and the DLC. Nobody like the outsider Howard is exceptable to these people. So it is Bush or the DLC? Nope, we are sticking with people powered Howard. On Clark, check this out. http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
Ann Stewart 1208
09-17-2003 08:30 PM ET (US)
I posted all your comments on Clark on my news blog today at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com . Folks can you tell me how you think this will affect the other Candidates. I think Keith is the only one who has spoke of this and thank you Keith.
09-17-2003 08:30 PM ET (US)
I posted all your comments on Clark on my news blog today at http://prettyboys.blogspot.com . Folks can you tell me how you think this will affect the other Candidates. I think Keith is the only one who has spoke of this and thank you Keith.
PEGGY 1209
09-17-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)
I WILL PRAY FOR BUSH AND I WANT THIS WAR TO BE OVER WITH AND I WANT THOSE SOLDIERS TO COME HOME.
I never liked Bush because, I think Bush was chosen out of desperation. He never should have been President in the first place. I think he needs to go to “HOW TO GIVE A SPEECH TRAINING” He can’t talk right.
I think he always has to pause before he speaks. He’s trying to thinks of his words. He looks and acts so stupid. I take nothing Bush has to say serious. I believe that our economy is so in dept as today due to this war, that we are not going to get out of dept if they don’t bring our troops home.
09-17-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)
I WILL PRAY FOR BUSH AND I WANT THIS WAR TO BE OVER WITH AND I WANT THOSE SOLDIERS TO COME HOME.
I never liked Bush because, I think Bush was chosen out of desperation. He never should have been President in the first place. I think he needs to go to “HOW TO GIVE A SPEECH TRAINING” He can’t talk right.
I think he always has to pause before he speaks. He’s trying to thinks of his words. He looks and acts so stupid. I take nothing Bush has to say serious. I believe that our economy is so in dept as today due to this war, that we are not going to get out of dept if they don’t bring our troops home.
Keith Brekhus 1210
09-18-2003 02:28 AM ET (US)
I wish Kerry wouldn't pander by promising yet more federal tax cuts. The projected budget shortfall is going to be 10 trillion dollars over the next seven years and I want a politician to tell me how he is going to raise the revenue needed to balance the budget, or what programs he will cut to balance it or both.
I am so tired of politicians promising to cut taxes while promising not to cut programs because it either means they are lying or they are running us deeper into debt and charging the bill to the next generation. I want real leadership and fiscal responsibility, not promises of lower taxes that mean cutting vital programs or saddling our children with insurmounatble debt.
The middle class tax cut line may appeal to the uninformed voter but it doesn't impress me. In my state mental health services, social services, and education have all taken massive hits because of Bush's tax cuts. I work at a University which layed off several employees and froze everyone's pay for two years--and for what---a few dollars off my federal taxes?
09-18-2003 02:28 AM ET (US)
I wish Kerry wouldn't pander by promising yet more federal tax cuts. The projected budget shortfall is going to be 10 trillion dollars over the next seven years and I want a politician to tell me how he is going to raise the revenue needed to balance the budget, or what programs he will cut to balance it or both.
I am so tired of politicians promising to cut taxes while promising not to cut programs because it either means they are lying or they are running us deeper into debt and charging the bill to the next generation. I want real leadership and fiscal responsibility, not promises of lower taxes that mean cutting vital programs or saddling our children with insurmounatble debt.
The middle class tax cut line may appeal to the uninformed voter but it doesn't impress me. In my state mental health services, social services, and education have all taken massive hits because of Bush's tax cuts. I work at a University which layed off several employees and froze everyone's pay for two years--and for what---a few dollars off my federal taxes?
Chris R. 1211
09-18-2003 01:04 PM ET (US)
I'm Guessing People Have Had Enough of Bush, and Ther're gonna vot him out.
09-18-2003 01:04 PM ET (US)
I'm Guessing People Have Had Enough of Bush, and Ther're gonna vot him out.
Brad 1212
09-18-2003 01:07 PM ET (US)
I think Uma Thurman should be President. Ya'll know she reminds me of Regan in how she acts, but she's got a nice body, I'd like to vote for Dean, but I don't like his body.
Just like John Kerry would say:
Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean------Dean this-----Dean That----Dean Dean Dean
09-18-2003 01:07 PM ET (US)
I think Uma Thurman should be President. Ya'll know she reminds me of Regan in how she acts, but she's got a nice body, I'd like to vote for Dean, but I don't like his body.
Just like John Kerry would say:
Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean------Dean this-----Dean That----Dean Dean Dean
Matt 1213
09-18-2003 01:14 PM ET (US)
On Clark:
Clark has my vote, I was watching him on CNN yesterday, and he had his game face on, and was ready to go in to this race. He's earned my vote.
On Iraq:
Welcome to the new Millenium's Vietnam. Saddam might have been a warlord and evil, but Iraq was still a country when he was there. Now it's in shambles and the US has no way out.
On This:
I'm really starting to enjoy this talk.
09-18-2003 01:14 PM ET (US)
On Clark:
Clark has my vote, I was watching him on CNN yesterday, and he had his game face on, and was ready to go in to this race. He's earned my vote.
On Iraq:
Welcome to the new Millenium's Vietnam. Saddam might have been a warlord and evil, but Iraq was still a country when he was there. Now it's in shambles and the US has no way out.
On This:
I'm really starting to enjoy this talk.
Keith Brekhus 1214
09-18-2003 03:27 PM ET (US)
Vietnam Vet Max Cleland compares Iraq to Vietnam...this is well worth the read.........
Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq
By MAX CLELAND
The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.
In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.
Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.
The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.
However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.
There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.
Sound familiar? It does to me.
The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.
Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:
• Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.
• If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.
• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.
If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.
• If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.
• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.
• In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.
Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.
They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.
A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.
A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.
In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.
The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.
Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.
Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.
09-18-2003 03:27 PM ET (US)
Vietnam Vet Max Cleland compares Iraq to Vietnam...this is well worth the read.........
Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq
By MAX CLELAND
The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.
In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.
Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.
The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.
However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.
There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.
Sound familiar? It does to me.
The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.
Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:
• Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.
• If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.
• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.
If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.
• If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.
• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.
• In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.
Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.
They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.
A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.
A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.
In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.
The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.
Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.
Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.