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  
  Lysa 812

08-25-2003 09:55 PM ET (US)
Hey Ann, you slipped in.
Yup, those guys be the best!  
  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.  
  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.  
  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 !!  
  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.  
  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}.  
  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.  
  Ann Stewart 819

08-26-2003 02:55 PM ET (US)
Hello everybody
Glad to have you here today.  
  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?  
  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.  
  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.  
  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 :-).  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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 :-).  
  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.  
  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.  
  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!!!  
  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) ;-)

  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?  
  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.  
  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!  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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?  
  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.  
  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?  
  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.  
  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.  
  Lysa 845

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  
  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  
  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:


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.

  Keith Brekhus 850

08-27-2003 10:21 AM ET (US)
That poll is Great News for Dean!  
  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


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 !  
  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.  
  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 !!!  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  Joy 859

08-27-2003 02:45 PM ET (US)
How many think Clark may win?  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.

  Keith Brekhus 863

08-27-2003 04:09 PM ET (US)

Right you are. This editorial from the Army Times (yes a US Army newspaper) says it all....


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.  
  Ann Stewart 865

08-27-2003 04:46 PM ET (US)
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.

  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, .."
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.,  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  Jennifer (Bush Supporter) 878

08-28-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)
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.

  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.


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 !  
  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  
  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.  
  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.


That sinking feeling

By Donald Lambro

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)


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.  
  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


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.


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........

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
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
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...........

The People's Voice Website

Here’s how you may use this blog. First you must sign in at blogger. Just push on this blogger link button right here.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Than put in the username box the word “PeopleTalk” and password “talk” Than push the link to People Talk and start to type your words in the window and when you are done push the button Post & Publish, and again if you have any questions contact me. I am Ann Stewart your online friend. Email: 4stew@prodigy.net



Election Sites