SoftVote's Presidential Blog: The Clash of the Titans: The First Presidential Debate

« Bush Scores Points in Florida | Main | It's All Over, Folks! »

October 04, 2004

The Clash of the Titans: The First Presidential Debate

On Thursday September 30th, millions watched President Bush and Senator Kerry go on their first face-to-face debate to prove whose fit to be the next commander in chief. The main topics discussed were foreign policies and homeland security. The debate gave each candidate an opportunity to express their views in hopes to influence huge audiences for the November 2nd election.

Kerry focused on the war on Iraq calling it "a colossal error of judgment." Meanwhile, Bush accused Kerry of being inconsistent and made this the basis of his arguments throughout the debate. Kerry retaliated by stating that President Bush had left the US bearing 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs. But neither of the candidates managed to deliver a clear blow to show the audience who was victorious on the debate. John Shovelan, a Washington correspondent, states, "He [Kerry] didn't land, though, a king hit, he didn't knock the President out."

On the overall performance of each candidate:
- Kerry was direct, knowledgeable and stirred far from the indecisive attitude that he has been projecting throughout his campaign.
- Bush was strong, defensive and held a firm grasp on the issues.

They ended the debate with the problem in the Sudanese region of Darfur and they both agreed that nuclear proliferation is the number one threat in the United States.

Although the pre-debate polls showed Americans divided almost evenly over whom they would likely vote for, according to a CBS News Poll, the polls started to sway the uncommitted voters to Kerry's favor. Forty-three percent of the uncommitted voters who watched the debate believed that Kerry was the winner, whereas twenty-eight percent chose Bush.
Read more on the details:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/opinion/polls/main646712.shtml

Posted by Wild Bill at October 4, 2004 01:59 AM

Comments

I support President Bush, but,even I have to admit on style J.F.K. won the debate. If I ever find myself in need of a debater I will call on senator Kerry.

One the issues important to me, President Bush is right even if he did not articulate them as well as he could have. This election will be won on who right on the war on terror and the economy. President Bush has taken the war to the terrorists and the economy is in fine shape. low intrest rates low unemployement, a housing boom, tax cuts for all, and all this after a blow like 911. President Bush would never say he was a great orritor, but he is a good man with the right ideas at the right time. Please Vote for President Bush in November. Thank You

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 4, 2004 03:12 AM

I actually felt sorry for Bush. He seemed as though he was lost and waiting for someone to tell him what to say. I guess that is why he has so few press conferences and why he knows what the few he agrees to let ask questions are going to ask him. He really had nothing to say and what he did say was just the same thing over and over.

Posted by: N Wiley at October 4, 2004 09:21 AM

I would have to say Kerry won, but he still has not given any specifics on how he will do what is says he will do. I believe Kerry will say anything to get elected. I still don't believe a word he says because his past record in the Senate proves that what he says now is not what he has done in the past!

Posted by: David Lowery at October 4, 2004 09:43 AM

There is no question in my mind about the debate. John Kerry won and I mean he won big-time. He's the better man by far and I'm going to proudly vote for him. When John Kerry is finally elected President, we won't have a president who lies to the American people anymore. The American people will appreciate that and that day cannot come too soon.

VOTE/SUPPORT the Kerry/Edwards ticket

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 11:18 AM

This got lost in the other forum, but it's an interesting look at how extreme debate tactics are used by Democrats when they have nothing else to win a debate on, like substance...

I noticed something interesting during the debate last night. Kerry was taking notes. I saw this happen once before, during the Nixon-Kennedy debates, that whenever Nixon was making an important point, JFK started writing furiously, distracting the audience from absorbing Nixon's answers. On TV that might work, but another factoid was that both last night and back in 1960, those polled after listening on the radio gave the debates to Nixon and Bush, which only shows that Kerry can imitate Slick Willy's persona and stage presence, but underneath those nice haircuts JM so admires, there's not much underneath...
Except for maybe an intern.

[First Posted by: Dave at October 1, 2004 11:42 PM on 'Bush scores points in Florida' blog]

Bush's debate style wasn't ivy league, but at least he was clear about the issues. He intellectually won the debate. Kerry contradicted himself, taking both sides of the issues, and I could see Bush was erring on the side of caution when he should have jumped on Kerry each time he 'adjusted his sails'during the debate or since before the debate. Democrats think that sail adjusting is no big deal. I do. Say what you believe or I won't believe what you say. I have long since stopped believing what Kerry says because it wasn't the same as it was yesterday or what it will be tomorrow, and you can't trust anyone who is operating in their own self-interest first and foremost. Don't give this country Scary Kerry for Halloween!!

Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 11:56 AM

I would have to agree that John Kerry gave the performance in the debate. A careful survey of the points in the debate showed a twisting of facts by John Kerry during the debate, contradictions of his own points in the debate as well as contradictions from former claims by the Consumate Senator. I thought that the subject of the Iraq war was overlong and drawn out. The President's clear and concise position and strategy allowed the President to make his case and left him only to restate that position repeatedly. If I was looking for a President who would look good in a debate, Kerry would have my vote, I'm looking, howver, for a person who will perform well in office with a consitancy and resoluteness that is placing the interests of America above some sort of Global Test or standards of a failing European Union.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 4, 2004 12:06 PM

Senator Kerry showed America what happens when George Bush faces a candidate outside of his controlled Republican environment that doesn't agree with how he handled the office of U.S. President in the past 4 years. Bush failed at convincing American that he was an effective President. As I noticed, Bush snatched his hand away from Senator Kerry at the beginning Debate hand shake., Bush seemed very annoyed at having to answer to anyone, Bush never outlined a plan to end the war, Bush jokingly claimed that his own daughters should be put on leashes, He blinked so much at the end of the debate, I couldn't understand if this was out of fustration or if he was about to cry. Senator Kerry showed a calmness, knowledgeable, informed, hands on type of Commander In Chief leadership that I would more than welcome than a President who is a stubborn, religious fanatic that can't admit he is wrong, even when he is. Kerry won the debate, and performed as his supporters expected him to. Very Direct and non-passive.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 4, 2004 02:29 PM

It is amazing to me how taken people are by the message the Bush team has been circulating. Having worked in marketing and advertising my entire career, much of my time is spent putting "spin" on things to make them appear to be better or more appealing than they are.

Bush keeps being praised for delivering a clear and consistent message, but folks don't seem to recognize that Bush's consistent message is just a canned response to every question asked of him. He has not clearly defined any plan and keeps stating over and over that we will not waver.

Take a close look beyond the rhetoric and you may notice that the actions Bush took regarding this war have not aided in the prevention of terrorists, it has created even more of them and more hatred towards America. He has alienated our allies, so now we must fend for ourselves to win something that is spiraling recklessly out of control.

Domestically, Bush has failed to help the economy, unemployment, schools, etc. The No Child Left Behind effort is a colossal failure, ask any teacher in a struggling school. Unemployment is low, because after 6 months of it, you are no longer a "number" once your benefits run out. Millions of additional Americans are without health insurance than they were four years ago.

Bush is a complete failure and his immaturity at last weeks debate shows how much of a coward he is and how much he is unable to take criticism. I don't want a president that looks to god for the answers, I want someone who can do it through rational thought and solid facts.

If 9/11 never happened, Bush would go down as the biggest failure in history. His popularity stunk before 9/11. Now that he has declared himself a "war president" people are led to falsely assume we are safer when in fact reality is showing that we are in greater danger tahn ever before.

Kerry is a dolt, but he gets my vote for being mature, knowledgeable and seems to not have some psychological problem that he needs god to guide him or has a passion to be a war monger.

We need a President that will focus on this country, not lining the pockets of his cronies.

Posted by: Kevin at October 4, 2004 02:56 PM

The Republican's (RNC) Bush and Rove really stepped over the line here! How dare the Republican party state that the Democrats will ban the bible if they do not vote for Bush / Chenney this year. This act is the lowest of low!

This only proves how desperate the RNC must be to state such lies!

I know for a fact this will be addressed to MR. Bush this comming friday in St. Louis! I hope he is booed out of the damn place afterward!

Read this article it is sickening! Just plain sickening!

Bush campaign's contempt for 'people of faith'
Now in the campaign of 2004 we have an even more dramatic example revealing the utter contempt and disdain in which powerful Washington leaders privately hold those voters these same leaders publicly praise as "people of faith." But this time, the offending individuals and institution are the not liberal press or the elite media. No they are President George W. Bush, his closest political advisor Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee, which the Bush White House totally controls.

Bush's own RNC did a mass-mailing to churchgoing voters in Arkansas and West Virginia warning that if churchgoers did not vote Republican in November, the godless "liberals" (read: Democrats) would ban the Bible from American life.

Forget that this smear is as vicious as it is dishonest, and that no U.S. politician has even mentioned the idea of banning the Bible. What ought to anger fair-minded Americans everywhere is that the Bush-Rove team must be convinced that the churchgoing folks of West Virginia and Arkansas are so gullible and so ill-informed that this baseless charge could scare them into voting Republican for Bush-Cheney in order to keep their Bibles.

Tell me, please, just how bigoted and ignorant do George Bush and Karl Rove think that churchgoing voters of Arkansas and West Virginia really are?

West Virginia's senior Democratic senator, Robert Byrd, has it mostly right: "The Republican National Committee is spreading this tripe to smear Democrats, and the president ought to demand that the Republican National Committee apologize to the people of West Virginia."

More accurately, it is President Bush and Karl Rove who owe apologies to West Virginians and Arkansans, because the Republican National Committee is not by any definition an independent entity. The RNC is under the absolute control of this White House's political office and Karl Rove. That's the way things work in Washington. The only time that either political party's national committee enjoys any independence of action is when that party does not hold the White House.

Arkansas Democrats condemned the phony Bible-banning scare tactics mailed to that the faithful of that state. With more optimism than may be warranted, Sen. Blanche Lincoln said: "I hope that there will be an apology for their claims that Democrats want to ban the Bible and the inference that Democrats for some reason cannot have a faith as close or as deeply held as the other party." On the Senate floor, Lincoln added, "I find (these tactics) to be the pits, the absolute bottom of what is wrong in the political process."

Yes, the direct-mail smear is both dirty politics and the ruthlessly deceitful manipulation of religion for selfish and base reasons. But what remains long after the outrage is the sickening realization of the pervasive cynicism that moved the Bush political operation to write, produce and distribute this letter that so totally disrespects the intelligence and judgment of the Christian, churchgoing voters to whom it was sent. Let us hope that this is not an extension of President Bush's "faith-based" campaign.

It does make you wonder exactly how bigoted and how ignorant Republican political leaders personally judge the Christians of West Virginia and Arkansas to be. Maybe Bush will tell us in the next debate.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 4, 2004 03:04 PM

I can not believe the comments from the Bush supporters in this blogg that actually believe that Bush was clear about the issues. That Kerry was on both sides/ What kind of dope are you people on?

Bush looked stunned, at a total loss, and totally out of touch!

For you gun rights people he looked like a deer caught in head lights!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 4, 2004 04:08 PM

This is a piece written quite recently by novelist E.L. Doctorow.
It first appeared in the September 9th issue of the Easthampton Star. It is an eloquent and compelling essay worth reading.

[Verified:
http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm]

GUESTWORDS: By E.L. Doctorow

The Unfeeling President
I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

The novelist E.L. Doctorow has a house in Sag Harbor.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 04:26 PM

I feel very sorry for anybody whom is being atacked with misconceptions, half truth, half lies and a combination of facts that produce a terrible misinterpretation of the actual proceedings in Iraq and within the borders of this nation.
It is very easy to DESTROY....
Very difficult to CONSTRUCT......
Mr. Kerry is an individual that is up to destroy everything that is related to President Bush. It just reflects his idiosincracy and personal hate for the Bush family.
I have seen it in many countries, the Rich against the Rich for position and fame.
But at the end, he is nothing but a poor individual whom has had reflected a poor character and a mischivious personality. His career as Senator has A LOT of negative material. Hence, President Bush, had never attacked him in a "personal" array. This simple fact, tells how SUPERIOR President Bush is.
Mr. Kerry loves to DESTROY. He already has destroyed our International ties with ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. (And I think they are close to the hundreds). How a person like this could be the representative of this country.? - We have close ties with Japan, England, Italy, Checoslovaquia, Poland, Most of our allied Latin American Countries....
And Mr. Kerry, JUST CALLED THEM A BUNCH OF IDIOTS THAT "ARE NOT" OUR TRUE ALLIES....
Hello.......!!!
If he becomes the President of this country, We will suffer as the Old USSR. Practically,
This country will go down to his knees in a very bad way. And I can practically see every single one of our 51 States, DISBANDING, the same way the russians did.
GOD HAVE US IN HIS MISERICORDY..
How can he call Japan and England like that.?
Does he pretend to re-instate "new connections" with France as our BEST and STRONGEST ally.?
Is it for real that you consider FRANCE a better ally than England of Japan.?
Mr. Kerry...... nice try...but you do not convince me...I don't beleive you. And I will not follow you....
As an INDEPENDANT voter that I am, I was thinking of voting for Mr. Nader. But after all I have seen in this first day of debates, I WILL GIVE MY VOTE TO PRESIDENT BUSH.!!
There is NO COMPARISON between you and him. He is a true man that has showed his high moral and family values.
How could you call our best allies PUPPETS.?
If we talk about PUPPETS, YOU ARE YOUR WIFE PUPPET...
President Bush has placed the terrorist's war very far from our land.
You have to understand that by attacking Saddam Hussein, ALL THE TERRORIST IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD CONVERGED RIGHT THERE.!!!!
Are you blind.? or, is it that you will lie trough your teeth just to become the President of this country.
Since you been on your personal pursuit of your own goals, you have attacked, and attacked, and attacked the very nature and soul of the UNITED STATES..
ALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES BELIEVE YOU ARE A FAKE.!!!
Big mouth, Loud mouth politician... (By the way, bad politicians are called exactly like this in a lot of countries..) A lot of BLAH, BLAH, and DESTROy, DESTROY...But YOU HAVE NEVER MENTIONED IN "ANY" OF YOUR CONVENTIONS "ANY" SINGLE WORD ABOUT "CONSTRUCTION". (because you dont know how...)
President Bush is a STRONG LEADER, and YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THIS....
Every single American should be backing up our President in the CONSTRUCTION of a peaceful world.!!

Posted by: riccardo at October 4, 2004 06:17 PM

Now we go!!!!!!!

We turked the Democrats turked the Bush campaign on foriegn policy which was supposed to be his strong point, now we go on to Democrat strong points Domestic policy and the economy where Bush does not hold a prayer!

To bad the Republicans mailed that piece to West Virginia and Arkansas about banning bibles! It is good that it is not true because Bush is going to need all of the bible verses he can read from now!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 4, 2004 06:56 PM

Wigigigigwhat? Writing notes to distract the audience? I'm not going to attempt to explain how taking notes in order to plan some sort of counterpoint is of some importance in debate...just trust me when I say it is, ok cookie? This is also ignoring the fact that the President was also observing the importance of such practices by taking notes himself. Vote for who you want for, but don't base your vote on something that blatantly stupid.

Posted by: Koda at October 4, 2004 08:54 PM

C'mon you guys. Kerry clearly won that debate and had Bush so extremely agitated, that he was reminiscent of the annoying know-it-all in class just waiting to get called on so he can tell the teacher the "right answer." Bush lost his cool, while Kerry maintained a calm, yet authoratative look.

Is it clear to me that Bush's only strategy is to name call John Kerry through implicitly calling him a flip-flopper and claiming that the war in Iraq is "hard work?" Excuse me, GW? Do you have any notion of what hard work really is? Mr. Bush, rather than using simple diction and calling your opponent names, why don't you tell me what you are going to do differently about Iraq, cause it is clear to me that the status-quo is not working.

Posted by: Joe at October 4, 2004 09:17 PM

riccardo,
Good post, but I am afraid it is falling on deaf ears. The liberals here are all looking for the good fight, you know, the anti war stance that they all drool over. Keep trying and good luck.

Posted by: Wayne at October 4, 2004 09:20 PM

OK, lets talk Kerry. He won the debate. I really expected him to. He is a lawyer, trained to sway 12 people to his ideas. He was trying to sway a country. I don't think the American people are that stupid.

He got to say what he "wanted to do", not what he had to do. It is easy to look back and see where problems are, it is harder to look forward and hope you are making the right ones. He agreed with the president, then turned against him when he wanted to run for president. How nice to be able to do that. I think it is called hindsight? Knowing what I know NOW about Microsoft, I would have offered Bill Gates my garage!

Is Kerry showing up for work now? Or is he just on the campaign trail? Gee I wonder why President Bush looked so tired, seems he still covers his job and the campaign trail. Hum, does Kerry still collect his pay, or is he on a leave? Now that is taxpayers money at work!

Posted by: Linda at October 4, 2004 10:11 PM

Kerry violated the debate rules!!!

John Kerry brought prohibited material in to Thursdays debate. go to http://www.cspan.org/
and click on first presidential debate. At about 2:05 into the debate John Kerry takes something that looks like a piece of paper from inside his jacket and unfolds it .

The rules

(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.

(d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.

Posted by: Christina at October 4, 2004 11:53 PM

Linda:

I am so proud of poor ol' tired President Bush. Give me a break! The president has a cushy job and he gets paid well for it. And what about those fringe benefits? Like a month off at a ranch in Texas during the summer. I feel soooo bad for him. Most of the work is done by his underlings. Georgie appears to be like a myna bird. Someone else tells him what to say and he repeats it and often in an unintelligible way. That explains why he seems to have a problem with understanding the issues that he should be dealing with practically every day. DAh!

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 12:30 AM

Louis:

Mr. Bush looked like Alfred E. Newman from Mad magazine! That is the perfect comparison as Mr. Bush has run our country as if he were taking cues from Alfred E. Newman. Unfortunately, I can laugh at Mad magazine. I can't do the same when thinking about Mr. Bush.

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 12:35 AM

Posted by: Linda at October 4, 2004 10:11 PM

Linda,

Is Bush showing up for work? When the Iran crises was announced by Colin Powell, were was Bush? On the campaign trail? I read in an article that Bush is rarely at the White House at this not, not that he is needed there. The point being he failed at his job, so why not spend time compaign? He is obsolete in the White House. Bush has never ran the White, he is simply a pawn for the Republican party. They honestly don't need him, as a matter of fact the White House would prefer he stay away. He only makes matters worse. NO THAT'S TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING TOTALLY WASTED!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 5, 2004 12:41 AM

Louis

We who support President Bush are not dopes. We are people who understand history, what made this country great, how important the war on terror is, who will handle the important issues better, and we know better then to call the oppitition DOPES. You see we for the most part are polite. President Bush is a proven leader and when November 2nd has come and gone, We will still have a great leader G.W. Bush as President. Thank you.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 5, 2004 04:54 AM

Joe,
How do you know what our military is doing is not working? Do you know anyone in Iraq? Where do you get your information? How long should it take? Do you think its time for us to get out of Germany or S.Korea? I can't beleive we can't force peace on the rest of the world overnight.

You liberals are unbeleivable, everyone wants some sort of peace in the middle east, and when the one guy comes along and tries to make a difference, the left pounces on him. What will Kerry do to insure peace and prevent another 9/11?

Posted by: Wayne at October 5, 2004 08:13 AM

Kerry had a good night at the debate. Question, why is he desperately trying to keep Nader off of the ballot? HMMM?? I wonder what the Dems would have said about Bush Sr. if he tried to keep Perot off the ballot. Kerry is doing whatever he can to get elected.

As far as Bush and his faith, I feel sorry for you people who attack a man who incorporates his faith into his everyday life's decisions. Keep digging the whole. If you want to talk about faith let's talk about how the offical stance of the Catholic Church is anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality but most Catholics are voting for a pro-abortion, pro homosexuality candidate. You are barking up the wrong tree to attack Bush's faith. The libs have a history of appointing judges that have taken God out of the schools, bibles and prayers out of the schools, the Ten Commandements out of public life, etc. so if the Dems are accused of banning the Bible that is not to far fetched. If this is foreign just look at history. Who has the history of putting God in a closet?

I challenge anyone to come up with hard core proof that the Bush campaign sent out those mailers. If anything it is religious leaders who are afraid that Dems are going to try to condemn religious leaders who preach the Bible, ie; abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong etc.

Just the facts Dems, Just the facts.

Alot can happen over the next month, don't count those chickens quite yet.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 5, 2004 08:18 AM

Chris,

Hmmmm, why is President Bush trying to get Nader on as many ballots as possible? As far as Perot is concerned, there was a groundswell of support for a third party candidate during the time that he ran for president. There is no such affect in this election. You are comparing apples to oranges, but I have come to expect that from you.

Finally, who has consistently used religion and God to divide people in this country? I say it is the Republican party. They are always right about everything... including religion. They take the high moral road... NOT! Your party is filled with many hypocrites. Whoever is using religion to further their own political careers will have to answer for it when their day comes.

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 10:08 AM

Wayne:

George Bush has caused a lot of peace in the Middle East! Hahhhhhhahhhhahahha

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 10:09 AM

Christina:

Your post is a bunch of whining about nothing. In my opinion, a debate should not be set up the way that it was in the first place. The candidates are so afraid that a real debate will make them look bad. I believe that the Republicans had a lot more to worry about on that point. I am sure that the 32 pages of rules were especially important to George Bush. It's kind of funny how these rules post are now showing up on this site. Do you know how ridiculous this nonsense is?

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 10:16 AM

On debate night, George Bush was like a doll with a pull string. He kept repeating the same old BS over and over again. He really needs to find something else to talk about. Maybe the Republican party can reprogram him for the next debate so that he presents himself in a more presidential way!

George Bush comes from a world in which something is "true" because he says it is so. I know it can't be the real world!

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 10:21 AM

JM,

You did not address any of the issues with facts. But nice emotional democrat like argument.

The law is Nader should be on the ballot, it has your argument is not backed up with facts.

Try again.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 5, 2004 12:27 PM

Thank God for someone like George W. Bush. He has the character and morals of a good president. John Kerry has a horrible voting record that makes us look more and more socialistic everyday. It scares me to think that there are as many people in this country voting for someone like Kerry. Besides, for those of you who think USA needs people like France, look at our history. Whenever there has been something that has happened overseas, it was America who stepped in and fixed it. Whenever something happened on US soil, who came to our aid?

Bush must protect this country, Kerry will let them all in.

Bush-Cheney 2004!!!!

Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2004 01:45 PM

Chris:

Why don't you look up the word emotion in the dictionary and while your at it, look up the word fact. I am not too sure that you know or understand either of them. You are a Poodle dressed in a Rottweiler's skin. All yap, no bite. That's it! Most of you Republicans are whiney yappers!

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 05:58 PM

Mike:

Wrap George Bush and God under the same cloak. It all Republicans ever do... associate the president with God as if they are on the same level. George Bush in no more holy than the pair of socks that I just threw out yesterday. I am sooooo scared that the big bad Democrat will become President! Whoever wins will have to deal with the sames issues. I think John Kerry is very much capable of doing this. May the best man win. I don't know who will win, but I hope it is Kerry.

Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 06:04 PM

Did anyone notice that Kerry wants to win the "Peace" and Bush wants to win the "War". This is not just a different way of saying the same thing. As Reagan pointed out in a speech in 1964 the peace can be won in one second - all you need to do is surrender. In dealing with our current enemy victory - not peace - must be our goal. Liberals have historically pursued peace at the cost of victory - we cannot afford to make that mistake in this war.

Posted by: Calvin at October 5, 2004 06:15 PM

JM,
First,I'm not whining about nothing. The truth is the truth can you dispute it? No because he did take something out of his pocket. I know if George Bush would have took something out of his pocket the democrats would have had a fit. Secondly, I did not set up the rules for the debate, but when rules are set up they should be inforced. What are rules if you don't inforce them?
Thirdly, Your opinions or what you believe do not mean anything to me. I like only the facts.
Lastly, no I don't know how ridiculous this is. Please tell me and stick with the facts.

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 5, 2004 07:40 PM

JM/d.jones,
As usual you lack any itelligent remarks.

Posted by: Wayne at October 5, 2004 07:54 PM

Did Kerry make a mistake or what? Edwards - is a fool and really makes me wonder about Kerrys judgement!! - I was not sure - but now it's Bush all the way!!

Posted by: NC VOTER at October 5, 2004 10:18 PM

Christina,

That was directed at me.

JM,

Case in point. You are making this too easy.

Here in the state of Ohio I am aware of at least 3 family practicioners who have left their practices, partially due to malpractice insurance. I have a couple of married friends who are fine doctors and their malpractice insurance has more than doubled within the last few years. That is potientially 2 good paying jobs. In Jacksonville, Florida a surgeon group refused to do surgery because of the malpractice insurance. I know of a company that was sued for $1700 for faxing an informational piece to a prospective client. These are very real examples, in my little world, that are indicative of a hostile business environment in the U.S.

I quit my job during the Clinton induced recession and started my own company almost 2 years ago. I would not hire a full time employee because of this environment. I am not rich and I do enjoy the tax cuts given to me by this administration. I am also glad that my customers, who are rich are keeping more of their own money, because they are spending it with me. By the grace of God this will continue and I too will realize the American Dream.

Nice job Vice President. JM keep up the good work, you keep making us look good.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 5, 2004 11:14 PM

I just finished watching the debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney and as much as I liked and appreciated the way that John Edwards handled himself against the more experienced and knowledgeable Dick Cheney, I have to admit that Dick Cheney also did an excellent job.

I am not at all like the pro-Bushite Republicans who always claim that their man won. To be fair, I think that, at best, the Edwards/Cheney debate was a tie. It wasn't at all, anything like the Kerry/Bush debate last week as it was very clear that Kerry won that debate by far.

Knowing the Hero Hating pro-Bushites, I know that they are going to claim that Dick Cheney won the debate for the Republicans. Too bad that they never seem to be honest and truthful about anything. OK, to repeat--in my opinion, the Edwards/Cheney debate was a tie.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 5, 2004 11:36 PM

Christina:

Fact: To have 32 pages of rules to a debate is ridiculous. To complain about what you say is John Kerry possibly "breaking" one of the so-called rules is also ridiculous. That is a fact. George Bush looking agitated and being outdone by John Kerry in the debate is a FACT regardless of what he pulled out of his pocket. Complaining about something so unimportant is petty. That is a fact. Get over it.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:11 AM

Christina:

One more point, how do you know what Democrats would do if the President pulled a piece of paper from his pocket during the debate. Is that fact? By the way, I saw Vice President Cheney speak past the red light on the light bar at least two times tonight. That was a break in the rules. Even though it was only for a few seconds, his mike should have been turned off. The rules are the rules! Practice what you preach.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:25 AM

NC Voter:

You are a plant. You probably don't even live in North Carolina. John Edwards did pretty good tonight. No gaffes and I feel comfortable with him. He actually appeared more presidential than Mr. Bush did in his debate. John is obviously intelligent and more trustworthy than Mr. Halliburton Cheney. That is not to say that Cheney is not articulate. He is articulate, but wrong on the issues. He would have made a good cantankerous old member on the Politburo in the former Soviet Union. He looks like a shifty eyed old weasel.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:32 AM

In tonight's debate we saw clearly the strategy of the Democrats, make vague allegations, misrepresent the actual facts and attack. In response we saw clearly that an emphasis on truth backed up with actual facts from the Vice President. In the last half hour Edwards had do go to the trial lawyer trick of tearing off sheets of paper during the Vice President's comments in an attempt to distract but Chaney remained resolved and focused. How many times did Edwards say they have a plan but there wasn't enough time to explain the plans? How many times did Edwards evade answering the question posed to him to go off on the rhetorical diatribe of the Democratic Party? I can't really blame Edwards, I mean how could he really be expected to know what's going on in policy decisions since he really hasn't been in Washington that much. Cheney represented a strength and resolute firmness while Edwards thought he could slide by on his charm and trial lawyer skills. Who is Edwards kidding if he thinks he can seel the lie that only 1/2 of 1% of the medical profession have been affected by trial lawyers? Here's a real fact for the Democrats. Edwards won 200 million in awards for his clients. He personally received 100 million in fees from those clients. Now who is trying to make a profit off the unfortunate victims, the doctors he's putting out of business through litigation or himself. WHile doctors have fled his home state Edwards has laughed all the way to the bank, all the while setting up a fake corporation to evade personal income taxes that he wouldn't have paid if he hadn't been caught. Yea, he really cares about the common man.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 6, 2004 01:00 AM

As usual you lack any itelligent remarks.

Posted by: Wayne at October 5, 2004 07:54 PM

Wayne,

As usual you lack intelligence period. You've proved that on this post. It won't take The Supreme Court to rule on that. You are without a doubt stupid, and yes I know someone from Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, Mexica, Canada, Africa, England, New Zeland, and many more. Your comments are without merit. You are afraid to go to Iraq and fight for what you so strongly believe in. You would prefer to sit your lazy bu** at home, discredit a Vietnam war veteran, peck on your pc, and let our Military, and Iraq Children die while you endorse the killing.

Did Kerry make a mistake or what? Edwards - is a fool and really makes me wonder about Kerrys judgement!! - I was not sure - but now it's Bush all the way!!

Posted by: NC VOTER at October 5, 2004 10:18 PM

NC Voter, I am constantly wondering about Bush's judgement. No sane person could think like GW JR. Cheney is a bigot! His own daughter is gay! Cheney is a racist! He voted against the holiday for Dr. King. Cheney is a Thief! Haliburton is under fraud investigation. Edwards is to be commended for standing his ground against a seasoned politician such as Cheney. There was no clear winner of this debate. After the first 1/2 hour, I feel asleep in front of the television. I just wished Edwards would have reached over and knocked the sh** out of Cheney for his role in haliburton in Iraq contractor deaths.

Cheney's Daughter Wears Army Boots and a jock stap. Just Kidding.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 6, 2004 01:20 AM

Heres some of Edwards lies and deceptions from last nights debate

Osama in Tora Bora-Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.

Bush wanted to cut combat pay-COMBAT PAY

Edwards's assertion that the Bush administration wanted to cut combat pay for U.S. troops in Iraq stems from a political fight in the summer of 2003, when the Pentagon told Congress that it was opposed to proposals that would have extended allowances for imminent danger and family separation for military personnel who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail charged that the administration wanted to eliminate the allowances for combat troops. Pentagon officials said they never intended to reduce combat pay and that, for technical accounting reasons, they only opposed including the payments in the defense authorization bill for the fiscal year that started that September.

The 200 billion-WAR COSTS

Edwards asserted, as Kerry did at last Thursday's debate, that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion "and counting," an assertion that Cheney called him on. Cheney said the government has "allocated" $120 billion.
As of Sept. 30, the government has spent about $120 billion, and it has allocated -- or plans to spend -- $174 billion. The tab should run as high as $200 billion in the next year once other expected supplemental spending is added.

Job Losses - Edwards asserted that "in the last four years, 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost." The actual number is close to 900,000 and could shrink further when Friday's jobs reports is released. Edwards also misleadingly charged that the Bush administration is "for outsourcing of jobs." The Bush-Cheney ticket has not advocated sending jobs overseas, though administration officials have talked about how outsourcing can be good for the U.S. economy, a position many private economists echo.

The Deficit - Both candidates promised to cut the deficit in half in four years. Independent budget experts say neither the Republican nor the Democratic ticket can make good on that promise unless it scales back funding promises made during the campaign. The Kerry health care plan, for instance, could cost as much as $1 trillion, experts say, which would eat up most if not all of the revenue generated by raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year.

Millionaires Vs. Soldiers - Edwards asserted that "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool . . . pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving" in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket -- and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages.

Medicare Premium Hikes - Edwards blamed Bush for the recently announced 17 percent jump in 2005 premiums. Similarly, Bush cannot be blamed for the formula or rising health costs overall.

John Edwards said that he believes that the American people wants a president who will be honest with them. John Edwards lied openly and without reservation and the policies of the President and deliberately laid out assertations that have little to no basis in fact.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 6, 2004 09:51 AM

FACTS OR JUST PLAIN OLD LIES?

Vice President Chenney, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

IN FACT THIS WHAT CHENNEY HAS SAID NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR!

Even after that theory was largely discredited.Vice Prsident Chenney On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney stated on meet the press "We discovered ... the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. ... We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Than again last night Chenney stated "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

Flip Flop or Flat out LIE? It is a flat out Lie!

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

Another misrepresentation!

Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.

Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org ? a nonpartisan group Cheney cited during the debate as a fair data checker ? says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions.

Finally;

Bush is digging an even deeper hole, experts say, because he has promised to partially privatize Social Security, which carries a transition cost likely to be much bigger than that of Kerry's health care plan.

So much for Chenney getting his facts right he and Bush are flat out liar's and America is finding out!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 6, 2004 09:55 AM

Did Kerry make a mistake or what? Edwards - is a fool and really makes me wonder about Kerrys judgement!! - I was not sure - but now it's Bush all the way!!

Posted by: NC VOTER at October 5, 2004 10:18 PM

No I think Chenney looks like the fool I wonder about his judgement because he is on the ticket with the brainless W. Bush!

Chenney is the VP Bush is the Pres! or should it be the other way around? DiD you miss Thursday's event that showed how uninformed and stupid the leader of the free world looked like and was?

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 6, 2004 10:26 AM

Chris,

I often wonder, as a small business owner, do you report all of your income? Probably not. That is one of the reasons that most people start their own business; to circumvent our tax system.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 11:23 AM

John Kerry Explaining his "Global Test" comment.
"I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere."

Maybe all that startling information John Kerry has about George Bush's secret plans is coming to him from Messenger's From Outer Space. John Kerry says he has a Plan. Now we know-It's Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 6, 2004 12:19 PM

Do you honestly think that I care about some overpaid doctor? You place the blame on the wrong people. Every law suit starts with an individual or group of people. If their lawsuits do not meet a certain threshhold, then they shouldn't even be brought in front of a judge. Secondly, where is the responsibility of the insurance industry? In times of "plenty", they have no problem increasing the rates that we all pay for different types of insurance. They can cry and whine all they want (like you do), but it doesn't excuse them from their greedy ways.

One more question for you. What are the three family practitioners currently doing if they left their practices? I find that highly unlikely that they spent money on their educations to only have them walk away from their practices. Your use of the word "partially" is very important in your statement. It shows that it was not the primary reason for leaving their practice (if they truly did leave), but just one other contributory reason for choosing to do so.

Obviously, if you needed to hire a full-time employee, you would do so regardless of the economic climate. To not do so would jeopardize your business and means of making a living. My guess is that you don't need to have someone else working for you and that is the TRUE reason for not hiring someone.

One final point. You say there is a "hostile" business environment in this country. I say that is nonsense. Explain to me why you would use that term. I would like to comment on that point, but only after I understand the reason why you refer to it as "hostile".

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:21 PM

VP Cheney (spell his name right democrats). Also, as a long standing republican, I WILL admit that the President disappointed me. There were things he should and could of said last Friday and didn't. However, just because he didn't, doesn't mean he doesn't have the ammo to do so.

To think that our President, with the great leadership he has surrounding him, has taken our economy from a recession inheirited by the Clinton-Gore team (which I knew in 1999, the dems would turn it on the repub ticket in 2004 if the repubs won in 2000) and to have the sept. 11 attacks happen and the corporate scandals take place, that our President still managed to move this economy forward. The federal reserve itself just came out with figures that shows that our economy is coming back very strong and has said so.

Kerry/Edwards has nothing to run on except for looking for anything they can find in the last four years and try their best to tear it apart. Bush has the support of most republicans, most independents and yes, even a few democrats--believe it or not.

That has to say something for a conservative republican president (who himself has said he is not a great orator) to be able to get so many supporters on his side. Substance IS better than how sauve Edwards can be shown on tv. You can still look good, be a good orator and still be a liar and distorter of the truth.

Bush/Cheney 2004!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2004 12:24 PM

Louis,

I am a small business owner. I can see how easy it would be for a small business to reach that so-called top bracket. The companies that I do business with do fall in that category and this has an effect on my business. So your point is not entirely accurate. As for your comment about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 You may have scored a gotcha, but the fact still remains the Bush administration has a philosophy of do it to them before they do it to us. I am very comfortable with this position as 9/11 is an example when we put political correctness in front of national security.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 01:45 PM

d.,

As usual you claim one thing and do another, how dare you make a statement about his daughter like that, you say we are the bigots and you make a statement like that! I know you said �just kidding� but that would not wash if a Republican said it, not would it? No clear winner? What have you been smoking? Cheney cleaned edwards clock last night! Go to Factcheck.org about Halliburton, this web page will give all the facts you need. I know you will not because you are so willing to believe anything negative about President Bush/Vice President Cheney.

Your post,

There was no clear winner of this debate. After the first 1/2 hour, I feel asleep in front of the television. I just wished Edwards would have reached over and knocked the sh** out of Cheney for his role in haliburton in Iraq contractor deaths.

Cheney's Daughter Wears Army Boots and a jock stap. Just Kidding.

Posted by: David Lowery at October 6, 2004 02:31 PM

JM,
You said, Fact: To have 32 pages of rules to a debate is ridiculous. To complain about what you say is John Kerry possibly "breaking" one of the so-called rules is also ridiculous. That is a fact. George Bush looking agitated and being outdone by John Kerry in the debate is a FACT regardless of what he pulled out of his pocket. Complaining about something so unimportant is petty. That is a fact. Get over it.

When there are facts there are proof. You have no proof even about George Bush looking agitated. To me he looked annoyed. Those are all your opinions. Even what you call complaining about something so unimportant is not a fact. It is important to me. It's your opinion.
About Mr. Cheney yes his mike should have been turned off just like John Edwards who interupted Mr. Cheney twice. He also went past his time and had a flashing red light.

Opinion : A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 6, 2004 03:32 PM

It is 26 days from the most important election this country will have in over a 100 years! What is the most disheartening is how divided this country is and that many in this country have bought into and have been lulled into a false sense of security by the Bush Administration. The so called security moms in this country after everything that has been made public about false pretenses the American people were given for invading Iraq and what is now taking place their still believe that George Bush can protect them and their families.

To avoid redundancy spelling out all of the rhetoric and spin being thrust by the conservative right and what is really taking place in the world how can anyone believe the world and America is safer. Yes it has been 3 years since an attack on American soil but the entire Middle East is a massive grooming and recruiting ground for terrorists that hate and want to kill every American or supporter. What world leader would commit their forces to our aid with the kidnappings and beheadings taken place, what world leader would subject their forces to endless bombings and terror attacks in a country in a war they did not start? None, and people do not have to be a genius�s to see why Mr. Bush can not get more countries involved.

Now the Bush Administration and the right is spinning and misrepresenting the statement from John Kerry about passing the world test! What I took that as is regaining our global trust and integrity again before we act, and when we act the world will know we were justified.

John Kerry can and will restore the image America once had around the world of not only being the greatest democracy but a nation that is fair and just. I believe he will bring other countries to the table to help resolve the escalating problems in Iraq and help turn it into a true democracy. This is what John Kerry is talking about, when this happens and only when this happens will America be truly safe. This is something George W. Bush can not accomplish since he is the one everyone in the world can not trust. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE! THE TRUE SECURITY OF OUR NATION DEPENDS ON IT!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 6, 2004 03:51 PM

Louis,

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 01:45 PM

Chris this not about a gotcha! This about facts, the real fact is every news agency in the country reported what I wrote about small business and Cheney's misleading (lie) last night about it.

Fact: George Bush's promise to privatize social security will cost well over the amount Kerry is proposing for his programs!

These are sound economic facts from renowned economists Chris whether you agree with them or not does that make them any less factual. I am sure your experience in government and long tenure as a quote �small business owner� makes you a high authority on the subject to rebuke what these people said.

It is time you get of off your social high horse along with the rest of the supposed compassionate conservatives and look at what is really taking place in this country and the rest of the world. The one thing I agreed with Edwards last night and I admit Cheney was better spoken was "This Country Can Not Handle another 4 Years of Your Experience!� FACT��

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 6, 2004 04:05 PM

d.jones/JM,
You are the biggest liar on this site without a doubt.

Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 04:53 PM

If Iraq was the right country to focus on first,what will be the second. There are 60 other countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?

Does the Bush Administration support a broader Bob Graham-style war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations? Does Bush just want to wage a "war on terror," or just a war on al-Qaida?

The question for Bush and Cheney is Where does their war stop? When does it end? How do we measure victory? Most important, what is their answer to a question that Edwards posed and Cheney ignored.

How do you win this war on terror without the international communities help? We cant because the world does not trust America any longer because of Bush's policies.

The real war on Terror begins here at home by ending the terror this administration has placed on this country and by electing John Kerry to bring the world back to our corner in this fight, it is the only way it can be wone.

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 6, 2004 04:54 PM

Cheney's Daughter Wears Army Boots and a jock stap. Just Kidding.

Posted by: David Lowery at October 6, 2004 02:31 PM

Oh David,

Ease up a little! My home page on yahoo had a poll this morning that showed Edwards won the debate 60% to 30%. I have laughed at some of the statements about Kerry ie. Senator Sunshine, Someonse said Teresa H. Kerry looks like Tootsie. It was funny to me. I even laugh at some of the ridiculous statements made about me personally. Cheney is a hypocrit, that is a fact that is not funny.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 6, 2004 05:20 PM

Cheney! Sorry if we Democrats spelled his name wrong because that is easy to do because I know it can be spelled many different ways such as Darf Vader, Dr. Doom, Dr. Death, Dr. Feel Good ect.... I will be sure to make sure I SPELL IT RIGHT FROM NOW ON!

Posted by: Louis Giavasis at October 6, 2004 05:34 PM

JM,

First of all, your statement about taxes is untrue. I have an accountant that informs me of my obligation and I pay it. As for the Doctors your first statement speaks volumes and there lies the diference in our ideals. You look at anyone who is doing better than you as the enemy. Lighten up. The doctors that I was refering to went to Nova Scotia to do business. I said partially because malpractice was a big part of it. They were working in a country that is hostile to small business and if you doubt that refer back to your opening question "Do you honestly think that I care about some overpaid doctor?". This is a poor generalization and because physicians are my customers I happen to know that they earn their checks and what right do we have to dictate how much they should or should not make. Medicine is not free, not to them, not to us. It is not an entitlement as some would suggest. We are all spoiled.

Please refer to my previous posts to see how I outline a hostile business environment.

Louis,

Economists opinions vary. Privitization means ownership and I know that scares you to death because with ownership comes accountability. Problem is the Dems want us to be dependant, we only need to look at the malfunctioning social experiment called welfare to see how good that works.

No social high horse here just know from experience that with all of the obstacles out there the American Dream is still alive and well. It would be great if for once you and the rest of the libs would be grateful for what opportunites exist and stop pointing the finger at people like myself for not being compassionate enough. Not knowing me you are way off base on that one. You and JM are barking up the wrong tree. It is laughable.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 05:46 PM

Chris,

I think the Bush philosophy is better stated as "stick it to them" ( "them" meaning the working & middle class in this country).

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 06:55 PM

Christina,

You are correct. I was just pointing out to you that your previous post also contained some opinions (about how Democrats would react...). No one has yet to determine what Mr. Kerry removed from his pocket. In all honesty, I watched or listened to the debate (when I walked out of the room at times) and I did not see that to which you are referring. IN MY OPINION, it is petty. You don't hear much about it, do you? Why? Because most people probably believe it is petty, too.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 07:00 PM

Christina,

Almost forgot:

Agitate: to bother
Bother: to disturb or anger

I think Mr. Bush displayed these characteristics during the first debate.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 07:06 PM

I often wonder, as a small business owner, do you report all of your income? Probably not. That is one of the reasons that most people start their own business; to circumvent our tax system.

Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 11:23 AM

JM/d.jones,
How much do you pay in taxes? What percent do you pay in taxes? Do you even work? Oh yeah, your a computer guy right?

The only computer job you have is selling them at Best Buy.

Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 09:47 PM

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
www.Misleader.org
===============================

SWIFT BOAT VET GOT $40M CONTRACT FROM BUSH

The Bush White House has denied any connection to the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth[1] - the group that has been airing factually unsupportable smear
ads against Sen. John Kerry's war record. But a new report today shows that
one of the key accusers in the smear ads was a lobbyist for a company that
recently received a massive federal contract from the Bush administration.

As the Washington Post reports, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the
man who claims Kerry was not under fire when he received his first Purple
Heart, is a top lobbyist for a defense contractor that recently won a $40
million grant from the Bush administration. According to a March 18 legal
filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists
working for FastShip'\'s effort to secure federal contracts.[2] On Feb. 2,
FastShip announced the Bush administration had awarded it $40 million.[3]

Schachte has other connections to the Bush administration. The Washington
Post notes David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of
Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York.[4]
Records show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.[5]
Additionally, Schachte helped organize veterans' efforts against Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) and for Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary.[6]

This is not the first member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has
been revealed to be connected to the President. The Bush-Cheney campaign's
top outside lawyer was forced to resign after he admitted providing legal
services to the veterans group.[7] The Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans
adviser was also featured in one of the smear ads.[8]

Sources:

1. "Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan," WhiteHouse.gov, 8/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52656.
2. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52657.
3. "FastShip, Inc. to Receive $40 million in Federal Support for Marine
Cargo Terminal in Philadelphia," FastShipAtlantic.com, 2/02/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52658.
4. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52657.
5. OpenSecrets.org, 8/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52659.
6. Charleston Post & Courier, 2/17/2000.
7. "Bush-Cheney Lawyer Advised Anti-Kerry Vets," Washington Post, 8/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52660.
8. "Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure," Washington Post, 8/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52661.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 7, 2004 12:27 AM

I just heard Dick Morris say that in all of the years that he was in the White House as a key advisor to President Clinton, not once did John Kerry's name come up.

That is an amazing statement considering that Morris was a very close key advisor to Clinton for many years.

He actually used the words "lightweight" in reference to Kerry and said that he was never a go-to guy on anything. Kerry was never considered a leader, just another 1 vote in 100.

When they wanted something done in the Senate, they went to Joe Lieberman or Barbara Boxer or someone else. Kerry was never a champion for anything.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 7, 2004 04:33 AM

Bush/Chenney Misleading the American Public Again as Usual!

1)In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.

SUICIDE BOMBERS

2)Cheney said that Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to families of suicide bombers and "I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business."

In fact, Saudi Arabia and Gulf state officials began the process of paying money to the families of suicide bombers and Hussein was a latecomer to the process. But most observers agree that those payments were not the reason that people became suicide bombers in the first place.

Question: If this was a case for invading, why did we not invade Saude Arabia also?

VOTER REGISTRATION IN AFGHANISTAN

3)Cheney cited the same questionable figures about voter registration in Afghanistan that Bush used in last Thursday's debate with Kerry.

In a lengthy report released last week, Human Rights Watch said the figures were inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. The respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in many those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions.

The Sept. 28 report from Human Rights Watch said:

"The tally of registered voters in Afghanistan, over 10.5 million in a voting age population of 26 million, is now believed to be significantly inaccurate, the result of widespread multiple registration by voters. As explained here, pronouncements by Afghan and international officials boasting that 40 percent of registered voters are women ignores the likelihood that tens of thousands of women have been registered more than once (some believing their voting card would entitle them to benefits or food rations), and masks regional variation in the figures, including data from some southern provinces showing that less than 10 percent of those registered are women."

4)BODY ARMOR

Cheney noted that both Edwards and Kerry opposed a spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan in October 2003, calling their position a vote "against the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor." Later in the debate, Edwards said the Bush administration "sent 40,000 troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed."

The charge on body armor has been part of the campaign rhetoric for months, even appearing in a Bush campaign television ad. It is true the both Kerry and Edwards voted against an $87 billion bill to fund military and reconstruction activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Congress added hundreds of millions of dollars for additional body armor, armored Humvees, and other systems to protect soldiers from roadside bombs and ambushes before approving the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request.

More body armor was needed by 40,000 troops in Iraq, according to Sept. 24, 2003, testimony by Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 19, 2003, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the committee's chairman, told acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee that the shortage of body armor in Iraq was "totally unacceptable."

Fact: Hundreds of millions of dollars was approved long before the vote for the 87 Billion Bush and Cheney say Kerry and Edwards voted against!

5)KERRY'S TAX PLAN

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading.

Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses.

According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

6)Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.

7)Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org -- a nonpartisan group Cheney cited during the debate as a fair data checker -- says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions.

8)Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that "the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate." While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in "direct aid." Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived.

9)Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official -- even after that theory was largely discredited.

*On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

*On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

10)Cheney stated before this debate I hve never met you! In fact there is now vedio of him sitting beside Kerry and other confirmed meetings!

WE NEED AN ADMINISTRATION THAT WIL TELL THE TRUTH NOT DISTORT IT AND FLAT OUT LIE!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 7, 2004 10:00 AM

Kerry performed better, however, a good debater doesn't mean better ideas for the country.

Vote Team Bush

Posted by: Queens,NY at October 7, 2004 11:22 AM

Wayne:

I pay over $ 9,000.00 dollars a year just in property taxes. I think if everybody paid what they actually owed, the tax burden on everyone would be more fair.

Posted by: JM at October 7, 2004 11:45 AM

Chris:

Go peddle your BS to someone who cares what you think. I have never asked for anything from anybody. I don't expect anything from anybody other than being treated fairly and respectfully. I stand on my own merits. Although your accountant tells you what you owe, they are well versed in how to minimize a person's taxes. I send thousands of dollars a year in taxes to the local and federal governments and see very little in return. I rarely even get a tax refund and I don't rake in big dollars. It's obvious to me that as a small business owner, you tout the typical business propaganda. It is not to say that I don't respect people who are able to make it on their own. Things in this country are out of wack. It's all about greed.

Posted by: JM at October 7, 2004 11:51 AM

Chris:

Your generalizations about how a Democrat may feel about accountability is so off base. Oh, I forgot. Republicans are always right. They are the patriotic ones! The are the ones that are accountable and have high standards! They wouldn't dream about government telling the individual what to do and how to behave! They are the party of the "big tent"! What is the Republican party as it is today? It is a tax and spend party that no other Democratic administration has ever even come close to. That is why the true "Republican" banner belongs to the Libertarian Party. Your party is our "great protector", yet it was on their watch that 9/11 occurred. Your party is a big sham beholden to big business and certain segments of the Christian community. People should wake up to that. You spout ideals that the party you support also spouts, but doesn't even follow.

Posted by: JM at October 7, 2004 12:00 PM

Hi Queens, NY. I totally agree. I think what we should do instead of yelping back and forth about what he said she said, and also looking at particular newspapers (i.e. NY Times [liberal paper], Washington Post [Conservative Paper], etc.) we should look at factcheck.org and see for ourselves what has happened and who voted for what. It's very easy for us to give our opinions and feelings.

If you look at the senate's page, it'll give you directly what Mr. Kerry has voted and any statements he made regarding his votes. You'll see in his votes how he has consistently (ok, maybe once or twice not) but consistently has voted against any kind of military budget enhancements. He's more for tearing down the military. If his record shows that, how can he be an effective commander-in-chief and say that he will give the military what they need, when for the most part always voting against it? Also, his voting record is even more liberal than Mr. Kennedy's....that should say something right there.

In my opinion, from looking at those records (non-biased records, mind you) that Mr. Kerry is out of touch with the current strategic needs of this country. JM/D. Jones, I respect your views and opinions-that's what makes this country great. But keep in mind, it's always easy to show where someone went wrong than to say what you'll do different. I truly don't believe that John Kerry can get more people "on our side" concerning the war. Those other countries have said so themselves. Also, our country IS more safe since 2001. Has there been any more attacks on our soil? Don't forget about the many terrorist attacks that took place on American properties overseas during the Clinton-Bore years and there was NO retailiation. That's how the liberals in America respond. Sit down and cry boo hoo, but let them walk all over us. Wish y'all would do that at all your rally's and demonstrations.

Bush/Cheney 2004!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2004 12:51 PM

Sorry I was not done. If you ask me you have the power to support people you agree with and deserve your support or not support them. If you do not agree with a ball player making millions don't watch or buy. That is the great part about this country, the system works. As a society we have supported people not worthy of our support, in my opinion. That is not the fault of our leaders. That is our fault. Just a thought.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 01:34 PM

I'm reading some of these posts and it's amazing the lack of truth and disingenuous statements being made. For one, Bush did not lie!!! If any one can PROVE to me that he lied, I'll vote for Kerry. But, I won't have to because there is no proof.

Second, for those of you who think that because there is dissent in the war that it's not a nobel cause, remember Lincoln went to bed on election night in 1864 thinking he lost the election to George Mcclellan, the anti-war, dissolve the union and let the South keep slavery candidate. Who would admit today that they would support McClellan. Also, the fact that Russia and France and the U.N. oppose the war being an example of alienating our allies, is ridiculous. They had ultierior motives, 100 million dollars, worth of motives. That is now a moot point and can't even be used by the Democrats. The war we are waging is against terrorism, not just Osama Bin Laden. We weren't attacked by Germany at Pearl Harbor, but we recognized that fascism had to be defeated. Although Vietnam was a poorly managed war by the Johnson administration, its cause was just, to stop communism which murdered 100 million people during the cold war. Which side of histroy will you be on? As Tony Blair said,"if we are wrong history will forgive us, but if we are right and we did nothing history will never forgive us. So all you Neville Chamberlins', George McClellans' and Jacq Chiroqs' you are part of the historical trend of being on the wrong side of history.

Domestically, get informed. Fifty percent of the so-called un-insured are only un-insured for 1 day, but they are included in the 45 million. Also included are the 20 million that choose to not be insured, and 75 percent of those are in their early 20's with no children. Also included in the 45 million are spouses who decline insurance and are insured on their spouses insurance plan. All said and done the number of un-insured Americans is less than 2 million, less than 1% of our population. Hillary doesn't know health insurance.

Unemployment numbers, someone said that after 6 months they are dropped from the unemployment figures that's why the unemployment rate is dropping. Give me a break, explain 1.7 million jobs in the last year, and don't give me the line that they are lower paying jobs. With inflation, salaries have still risen. Also explain why our economy is the strongest of all industrialized nations. Explain why we have one of the lowest unemployment rates of all industrialized nations. Explain why our economy is the best in over 20 years. The fact is what did Bush do to help the economy? He cut taxes to everyone. The bottom 50 percent of our wage earnes don't even pay taxes anymore. Following these tax cuts is when our economy whent on one of the strongest runs in history. Keep denying this to yourself if it makes you feel better for hating Bush, if it fits the Vision you want to see. Facts are Facts, don't distort them, don't deny them.

Bush isn't glamorous, but he's been right. I haven't agreed with him all the time, but on every important issue he's been right.

Posted by: John at October 7, 2004 01:42 PM

BID TO OVERTURN LOUISIANA ANTI-GAY AMENDMENT
http://www.outinhartford.com/home/news.asp?articleid=6947

by: Kevin McGill, The Associated Press
Gay rights activists on Friday brought a court challenge to the recently passed Louisiana constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriages and civil unions.

Attorney Randy Evans said the lawsuit revives several issues rejected by state courts as premature before the Sept. 18 election.

The arguments include the contention that the amendment was illegally adopted by the Legislature because it included more than one purpose - banning civil unions as well as marriages - and that it was illegally placed on the ballot for a day when there was not a statewide election already scheduled.

It also mentions problems with the election in New Orleans, where voting machines were delivered late at many precincts.

A spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office declined comment on specifics of the lawsuit but said the amendment will be vigorously defended.

The marriage amendment passed with 78 percent of the vote and is scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18. Louisiana is one of several states with gay marriage bans on the ballot this year.

The overwhelming approval followed an intense grass roots lobbying campaign by Christian conservatives.

Evans said the lawsuit will be heard Tuesday in Baton Rouge

The will of the people was thwarted by one liberal judge. This is why we need Bush in the White House. It is happening all to often.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 01:58 PM

For all you dummycrats posting about Bush being tied to corporations ect why is it 98% of his campaign money is fron individuals and Kerry is at 68 % individual donations and the rest is corporations and special intrest groups. Who owes who what

Posted by: wpnsgy at October 7, 2004 02:51 PM

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

For Chem and Bio the report was the same!

So much for the White House excuses! 1061 dead and over 7,000 wounded and no end in sight! The insurgency is getting bigger and more wide spread now what Mr. Bush!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 7, 2004 04:17 PM

Theresa Kerry does look like Tootsie. John Kerry looks like Lurch and John Edwards looks like Bill Bixby.

Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 04:26 PM

Lets see the Bush Administration said we invaded Iraq because of WMD'S, to rid the world of Sadam and now Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or material, or information to terrorist networks."

Keep on grasping what was the reason?

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 7, 2004 04:40 PM

Kerry performed better, however, a good debater doesn't mean better ideas for the country.

Vote Team Bush

Posted by: Queens,NY at October 7, 2004 11:22 AM

And Good Misleaders do not make good leaders!

Vote Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 7, 2004 05:33 PM

Face it, Kerry absolutely destroyed bush both on stlye and the issues. Bush was grimicaing and stuttering the whole debate and just repeated the same garbage he does at rallies were everyone has to sign a loylaty oath.

Posted by: FlamingLiberal at October 7, 2004 06:31 PM

Poland�s president was recently asked to comment on Sen. Kerry�s description of our allies as, "the coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."

Says President Kwasniewski (search): "It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice... I don't think it's a question of ignorance� It's immoral not to see this involvement we undertook, because we believe that we have to fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world."

Why does the Polish president believe Sen. Kerry ignores the sacrifices of coalition allies in Iraq? "He thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France and Germany."

Good Job Senator, real good. Big John showed real leadership.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 09:23 PM

The only computer job you have is selling them at Best Buy.

Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 09:47 PM

Wayne,

You work as a mis-informed liar. Just like Bush. Do you have a real job?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 7, 2004 09:53 PM

FL,
Do I detect hostility?

d.jones,
No I do not have a job. Due to the enormoous tax cuts I was able to retire. Are you really this stupid? I work very hard for a living, you are the one caught up in multiplt lies here. You are the one who is constantly spouting hate. Hate is what will do Kerry in next month.

Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 10:56 PM

The United States unemployment rate is down from 5.7% in March to 5.4% in August. September results are not yet out.

That's 0.3% in 6 months, and trending downwards.

Think about how many working-age people there are in this country. That's a lot of jobs in 6 months.

-U.S. Department of Labor

(Source = http://stats.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm)

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 7, 2004 11:19 PM

I urge everyone to go over to the "Kerry-Bronze Star" link and see where D-Jones actually wrote this to me:

"Shoe,

You are to dumb to realize that you are in American and bear witness to our own poverty and unemployment problems. What about Bush and his brutal cronies? We are nothing more than a small Iraq at this point. GW JR will magnify the reality and we will be the example of a much larger Iraq if he is re-elected. I still feel at this time you work "

Vote *****/******* 2004

I don't know what happened at the end of his thought where he trailed off (maybe sniffing glue), but he sure does have a warped perspective on our great nation.

Vote for President Bush next month

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 7, 2004 11:29 PM

Lurch is right on for Kerry and I think Edwards looks like Dennis the Menace.

Golly-gee, Mr. Cheney! I couldn't even be your assistant's assistant.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 7, 2004 11:32 PM

Everyone should watch this movie.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 7, 2004 11:44 PM

Go to this site.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
It is the speech given by Bush to Congress. He made it clear that the whole world including the previous administration thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It also reminds us of what it was like to have this intelligience in a post 9/11 world. It also reminds us that Saddams WMDS were not the only reasons for using force for example:

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions"

"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

"Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

"The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. "

The above quotes are just a sample of what Bush said. He did not mislead. We were all mislead by Saddam. That in itself proves the danger of Saddam.

The following points came from the report by Duelfer, although this is not the entire report I suggest you read it before passing judgement:

? Iraq?s acceptance of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program was the foundation of Iraq?s economic recovery and sparked a flow of illicitly diverted funds that could be applied to projects for Iraq?s chemical industry.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction
and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW related efforts.

? ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents. However, site visits and debriefs revealed that Iraq maintained its ability for reconfiguring and
?making-do? with available equipment as substitutes for sanctioned items.

? ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.

? ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.

? Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for
filling with CW agent. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities.

? Iraq declared the possession of 157 aerial bombs and 25 missile warheads containing BW agent. ISG assesses that the evidence for the original number of bombs is uncertain. ISG judges that Iraq clandestinely destroyed at least 132 bombs and 25 missiles. ISG continued the efforts of the UN at the destruction site but found no remnants of further weapons. This leaves the possibility that the fragments of up to 25 bombs may remain undiscovered. Of these, any that escaped destruction would probably now only contain degraded agent.

? ISG does not have a clear account of bulk agent destruction. Official Iraqi sources and BW personnel, state that Al Hakam staff destroyed stocks of bulk agent in mid 1991. However, the same personnel admit concealing details of the movement and destruction of bulk BW agent in the first half of 1991. Iraq continued to present information known to be untrue to the UN up to OIF. Those involved did not reveal this until several months after the conflict.

? Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ?Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi official until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.

These are just examples of proof of Saddam's intent, and while I concede that does not equate to eminant threat, it gives us the rationale of the President in a post 9/11 world to take out Saddam before he realizes the threat. I suggest people start to see things through the eyes of the leader of our country and ask what would I do if I thought Saddam had the ability and the will to destroy us. That was a very real threat.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 11:50 PM

JM,
You said, You are correct. I was just pointing out to you that your previous post also contained some opinions (about how Democrats would react...). No one has yet to determine what Mr. Kerry removed from his pocket. In all honesty, I watched or listened to the debate (when I walked out of the room at times) and I did not see that to which you are referring. IN MY OPINION, it is petty. You don't hear much about it, do you? Why? Because most people probably believe it is petty, too.
JM They determined it was a pen. I have heard a lot about it especially that night and the day after. Where have you been? They even had it on the news. So your opinions are your opinions and not facts.
In regards to about how democrats would react just read the articles and blogs on the internet it full of democrats reacting to things republicans did. That's a fact.

You said, Almost forgot:

Agitate: to bother
Bother: to disturb or anger

I think Mr. Bush displayed these characteristics during the first debate.

That your opinion again. Where are your facts?
Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 8, 2004 07:02 AM

Christina:

With regards to "possible" cheating at the debate, here is an article for you about what "may" have happened with George Bush. Evidently, one of the rules at the debate that the Bush team requested was that cameras couldn't take pictures from behind the candidates. I wonder why? If this turns out to be true, well the word "cheater" will take on a whole new meaning, wouldn't it? I have to admit that it is very intriguing.
-------------------------------------------------
Bush's mystery bulge
The rumor is flying around the globe. Was the president wired during the first debate?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff

Oct. 8, 2004 | Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?

Bloggers are burning up their keyboards with speculation. Check out the president's peculiar behavior during the debate, they say. On several occasions, the president simply stopped speaking for an uncomfortably long time and stared ahead with an odd expression on his face. Was he listening to someone helping him with his response to a question? Even weirder was the president's strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he said, "As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh -- Let me finish -- The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at." It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared "Let me finish." The green warning light was lit, signaling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish.

Hot on the conspiracy trail, I tried to track down the source of the photo. None of the Bush-is-wired bloggers, however, seemed to know where the photo came from. Was it possible the bulge had been Photoshopped onto Bush's back by a lone conspiracy buff? It turns out that all of the video of the debate was recorded and sent out by Fox News, the pool broadcaster for the event. Fox sent feeds from multiple cameras to the other networks, which did their own on-air presentations and editing.

To watch the debate again, I ventured to the Web site of the most sober network I could think of: C-SPAN. And sure enough, at minute 23 on the video of the debate, you can clearly see the bulge between the president's shoulder blades.

Bloggers stoke the conspiracy with the claim that the Bush administration insisted on a condition that no cameras be placed behind the candidates. An official for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which set up the lecterns and microphones on the Miami stage, said the condition was indeed real, the result of negotiations by both campaigns. Yet that didn't stop Fox from setting up cameras behind Bush and Kerry. The official said that "microphones were mounted on lecterns, and the commission put no electronic devices on the president or Senator Kerry." When asked about the bulge on Bush's back, the official said, "I don't know what that was."

So what was it? Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert and the owner of the Spy Store, a high-tech surveillance shop in Spokane, Wash., looked at the Bush image on his computer monitor. "There's certainly something on his back, and it appears to be electronic," he said. McKenna said that, given its shape, the bulge could be the inductor portion of a two-way push-to-talk system. McKenna noted that such a system makes use of a tiny microchip-based earplug radio that is pushed way down into the ear canal, where it is virtually invisible. He also said a weak signal could be scrambled and be undetected by another broadcaster.

Mystery-bulge bloggers argue that the president may have begun using such technology earlier in his term. Because Bush is famously prone to malapropisms and reportedly dyslexic, which could make successful use of a teleprompter problematic, they say the president and his handlers may have turned to a technique often used by television reporters on remote stand-ups. A reporter tapes a story and, while on camera, plays it back into an earpiece, repeating lines just after hearing them, managing to sound spontaneous and error free.

Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican Convention on the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't doing that at their convention."

Repeated calls to the White House and the Bush national campaign office over a period of three days, inquiring about what the president may have been wearing on his back during the debate, and whether he had used an audio device at other events, went unreturned. So far the Kerry campaign is staying clear of this story. When called for a comment, a press officer at the Democratic National Committee claimed on Tuesday that it was "the first time" they'd ever heard of the issue. A spokeswoman at the press office of Kerry headquarters refused to permit me to talk with anyone in the campaign's research office. Several other requests for comment to the Kerry campaign's press office went unanswered.

As for whether we really do have a Milli Vanilli president, the answer at this point has to be, God only knows.

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 07:45 AM

Hey Wayne!!!!

You're a closet Democrat! You're a closet Democrat!

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 07:46 AM

Taken from isbushwired.com: (very interesting comments about this from people all over. I didn't post the comments so you may want to view them for yourselves).

-------------------------------------------------
Is Bush Wired?
Is he prompted through an earpiece?
Thursday, October 07, 2004

What's the frequency, Karl?

Some of the comments being posted about the Bush earpiece on other sites are clearly planted by Bush supporters who hope the story won't make it out, [Postscript, Friday a.m.: Salon just posted a story by Dave Lindorff, adding a bit more to his Counterpunch piece] because when people start thinking about it, it's obvious that Bush's been doing this for at least four years in plain view. And there goes the election for the Republicans: the president is not only a miserable flub, but a cheat.

That's why Drudge et al are puffing up silly stories about Kerry's pen!

The point of the Bush wire wasn't to voice entire answers for him. It was to slip him critical information and phrases and cues and prompts. Bush can talk perfectly well for the limited kinds of things he wants to say. He can be folksy and funny. Dyslexic, yes, but he can talk. What he can't and won't do is apply himself (you know, "hard work") to learning things, or considering issues carefully, formulating arguments, assimilating facts. He's lazy. He hates thinking.

And he's always cheated when he could. He believes in cheating and dirty fighting as much as he believes in anything. Still, I suspect that it's been a slippery slope for Bush and Rove and Karen. First they gave him an audio prompter, so he wouldn't have to read speeches and stumble on words. Nothing wrong with that -- it's like a teleprompter for a dyslexic. They should have 'fessed up to it, though. When he started using a human cue card in his ear for press conferences, that's when it became very wrong. Taking it into the debate was outright fraud, a "f*** you" to truth, justice, and the American people.

To me, the most appalling aspect is the role of the press. The Washington press have sat on their smug behinds for four years and watched him do it, and closed their eyes and ears to it, even denied it in his behalf on occasion. They think "reporting" is giving the White House the benefit of the doubt, without even asking the question in the first place! Most amazingly, they actually think they're smarter than Bush.

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 07:58 AM

Something else for everyone here to chew on. I neither for or against what is printed below. I find it fascinating, though, because of its implications.

-------------------------------------------------
"A temporary coup"
Author Thomas Powers says the White House's corruption of intelligence has caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history -- and sparked a civil war with the nation's intel agencies.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Follman

June 14, 2004 | The U.S. is now waging three wars, says intelligence expert Thomas Powers. One is in Iraq. The second is in Afghanistan. And the third is in Washington -- an all-out war between the White House and the nation's own intelligence agencies.

Powers, the author of "Intelligence Wars: American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda," charges that the Bush administration is responsible for what is perhaps the greatest disaster in the history of U.S. intelligence. From failing to anticipate 9/11 to pressuring the CIA to produce bogus justifications for war, from abusing Iraqi prisoners to misrepresenting the nature of Iraqi insurgents, the Bush White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies they corrupted, coerced or ignored have made extraordinarily grave errors which could threaten our national security for years. By manipulating intelligence and punishing dissent while pursuing an extreme foreign-policy agenda, Bush leaders have set spy against U.S. spy and deeply damaged America's intelligence capabilities.

"It's a catastrophe beyond belief. Going into Afghanistan was inevitable, and in my opinion the right thing to do. But everything since then has been a horrible mistake," Powers says. "The CIA is politicized to an extreme. It's under the control of the White House. Tenet is leaving in the middle of an unresolved political crisis -- what really amounts to a constitutional crisis."

The bitterest dispute, though not the only one, is between the CIA and the Pentagon, whose own secret intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, aggressively promoted the war on Iraq. While departing CIA Director George Tenet played along with the Bush administration -- a fact which Powers says reveals the urgent need for a truly independent intelligence chief -- much of the agency is enraged at the Pentagon, which put intense pressure on it to produce reports tailored to the policy goals of the Bush White House. The simmering tensions between the Pentagon, with its troika of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, and rank and file CIA personnel boiled over in July 2003, when the White House trashed the career of veteran CIA operative Valerie Plame by leaking her identity. The move was a crude retaliation against Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had exposed the Bush administration's specious claim that Saddam had sought "yellowcake" from Africa to build a nuclear bomb.

The struggle between the CIA and the Defense Department reached a bizarre climax a few weeks ago when Ahmed Chalabi's office was very publicly ransacked by officers working under the command of the CIA; the Iraqi exile leader was later accused of leaking vital information to Iran, among other allegations. The abrupt fall from grace of the man hand-picked by neoconservative policymakers to lead post-Saddam Iraq, says Powers, lays bare the brutal turf war between the two sides.

"It reveals an extraordinary level of bitter combat between the CIA and the Pentagon. It's astonishing that the CIA actually oversaw a team of people who broke into Chalabi's headquarters -- which was paid for by the Pentagon -- and ransacked the place. The CIA single-handedly destroyed him."

The collapse of U.S. intelligence and the arrogance and extremism at the top of the Bush administration are also at the root of the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, Powers says. With U.S. troops facing a mounting insurgency from an enemy they couldn't find, Powers believes Bush officials signed off on a systematic policy of hardcore interrogation in a frantic attempt to deal with the problem. He says that while it's unlikely Defense Secretary Rumsfeld gave specific orders as to what type of abuse should be meted out to the Iraqi prisoners, there is strong reason to believe Rumsfeld "issued blanket permission for them to turn up the heat."

In an explosive conjecture, Powers also speculates that the Israelis, "who've had the most experience," cooperated with the U.S. on the techniques used to humiliate and break Arabs, including sexual degradation.

As for the dubiously timed Tenet resignation -- with its fairy-tale like cover story of "I'll be spending more time with my family" -- Powers thinks one possibility is that the CIA director may have been forced out after Pentagon officials, enraged by the Chalabi debacle, pressured Bush to get rid of him.

But what troubles Powers the most, he says, is that the Bush administration completely subverted American democracy, browbeating Congress and the national security agencies to launch a war. "They correctly read how the various institutions of our government could be used to stage a kind of temporary coup on a single issue: Whether or not to go to war with Iraq."

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 08:50 AM

Is Bush Wired?
Is he prompted through an earpiece?
Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 08:50 AM

GW JR has to cheat! It's in his blood.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 8, 2004 09:06 AM

Posted by: Wayne at October 5, 2004 08:13 AM

There is no peace in the middle east Wayne. There is complete Chaos!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 8, 2004 09:08 AM

Christina,

I didn't call it fact. It is obviously opinion. I mean, how much more obvious can that be? Remember, your "facts' about Kerry pulling something out of his pocket, by your definition, is also opinion? All you can say is that it was something pulled from his pocket trying to make it appear that he was cheating. You posted:
-------------------------------------------------
Kerry violated the debate rules!!!

The rules

(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.

Posted by: Christina at October 4, 2004 11:53 PM

Also, per another of your posts:

I know if George Bush would have took something out of his pocket the democrats would have had a fit.

This IS your opinion, not fact. You have not listed anything to support this opinion.

-------------------------------------------------

You jumped the gun with the hope that John Kerry was cheating. You made it appear factual, when in fact, it was only a pen which was permissible in the first place. I think that this is a classic case of "look who's calling the kettle black". You are doing the exact same thing that you are telling me that I am doing. For every example of mine, I can find one of your's. I know the difference between a fact and an opinion. As a matter of FACT, one of my posts stated in the first line... "In my opinion...". I think we can move beyond this now.

Thank you

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 09:12 AM

Bush's Illegal War
October 07, 2004

Written by veteran investigative reporter Bob Dreyfuss , The Dreyfuss Report offers readers the story behind daily headlines and policies pursued on behalf of national security. Send feedback to The Dreyfuss Report at DreyfussReport@tompaine.com.

http://www.tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php

It's not just Kofi Annan who says, correctly, Bush's war in Iraq was illegal. Kerry may have trouble citing Annan, but now he can rely on that paragon of international correctness, the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs. Here is an excerpt from the just-released current issue, in a piece called "The Sources of American Legitimacy ," by Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson:

Throughout its history, the United States has made gaining international legitimacy a top priority of its foreign policy. The 18 months since the launch of the Iraq war, however, have left the country's hard-earned respect and credibility in tatters. In going to war without a legal basis or the backing of traditional U.S. allies, the Bush administration brazenly undermined Washington's long-held commitment to international law, its acceptance of consensual decision-making, its reputation for moderation, and its identification with the preservation of peace. The road back will be a long and hard one.
Note "without a legal basis." Brilliantly, the piece takes on the illegal NATO war in Kosovo, too, which gave Bush-Cheney the precedent for the illegal Iraq war. And this:

Washington had acted illegally in going to war against Iraq, and events following the end of major combat operations (the absence of WMD, the growing anarchy) served to weaken rather than strengthen its case. It had gone far beyond the parameters of the 1990s debate over whether the United States should give the nod to the UN or to NATO, evidently deciding that it could dispense with both. It had confirmed the observation of Alexander Hamilton that the "spirit of moderation in a state of overbearing power is a phenomenon which has not yet appeared, and which no wise man will expect ever to see." And it had demonstrated by its every action that it had no plan to secure the peace. Peace was the furthest thing from the administration's agenda.
And this:

Such illegal uses of force are in fact unnecessary for U.S. security and actually imperil it. The Iraq war clearly illustrates both points: not only did containment and deterrence offer a perfectly workable method of dealing with Saddam's Iraq, but the consequences of the U.S. occupation have also made Americans much more insecure. Those consequences include daily attacks on American soldiers, the inflammation of opinion in the Muslim world (encouraging new recruits for al Qaeda), and the possibility of further wars arising from the potential disintegration of the Iraqi state.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 8, 2004 12:53 PM

I can think of alot of things right now to call the President, but if he wore a wire during the debate it needs to be made public! I would not put anything past Rove and the rest of this administrations lust to hold power!

Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 8, 2004 02:16 PM

Paul Bremer sets the record straight. After days of John Kerry and the news media's reports on Paul Bremer's comments, he's retorted to get the facts out. Kerry won't acknowledge or quote Paul Bremer's actual statements but sticks to the allegations and innuendoes of lies and deceptions.

In a New York Times interview Bremer said "The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism," writes Bremer. "I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush." Regarding Kerry's use of his remarks, Bremer continues, "Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism."

It dosn't stop with Bremer, the Democratic Pundits are all rallying around alleged statements by Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer. Kerry and his minions proclaimed once again that President Bush all but lied about the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Overlooked The report also states that, regarding the above weapons, Hussein had preserved key elements of his WMD programs so they could be reconstituted within a month of UN inspectors' exit; Iraq's chemical industry infrastructure allowed it continue a modest amount of dual-use research; and perhaps most ominously, regarding biological weapons, Iraq still had significant dual-use labs in its biological-weapons program, and still possessed biological seed stocks, still possessed its bio-scientists. What is more, if needed, Hussein planned on their all-out use, including the striking of all Israeli cities.

The report notes that Iraq was developing long-range delivery systems, potentially for WMD; that it had corrupted the Oil-for-Food program to evade UN sanctions; and that Saddam actively worked to divide the UN Security Council. Interestingly, there are very few hard facts in the report, which employs phrases such as "ISG judges," "ISG found no evidence," and "ISG has not been able to establish." Overall, the ISG appears to have done a relatively thorough job, but it's the lack of documentation on the alleged destruction of Saddam's previously documented WMD that is unsettling, especially since items such as biological-weapon seeds can fit a car trunk. The true, final status of many of Saddam's former WMD is currently unknown.

As for undercutting the President's war rationale, the report does nothing of the sort. The President took the Coalition to war based on the best intelligence at the time, which stated that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. (We're struck by the fact that the Kerry campaign and media are now attacking Mr. Bush's use of a generally agreed upon intelligence report with information taken from...another intelligence report!) Even the intelligence services of the Axis of Weasels believed that. If our intelligence services had been allowed to crawl all over Iraq for a year or two prior to the war, as the ISG just did, then the pre-war intelligence would have been very different. What the report does point out, however, is how very difficult it is to get good intelligence from inside a tyrannical regime.

The major news medias will not report the facts for the average American so they can make informed votes. The bias against the truth to win the election for John Kerry is becoming overwhelming. John Kerry is being allowed to lie to the American People on a daily basis and is not called into question for those lies and deceptions and the ironic thing is that while lying and misrepresenting what others are really saying, he has the audacity to call the President the liar.Admittedly, both sides are spinning the stories, but Kerry's spin goes beyond the pale by deliberately misrepresnting those whom he's quoting.

And while Democrats are crying about voting rights in Florida the AFL-CIO, which Abel is so proud of defending, assaulted a Republican Headquarters on Tuesday. They caused quite a disturbance, vandalized signs and posters, and several face assault charges. "We want to send a clear message to Bush," one protestor said. The incident in Orlando followed another assault in Knoxville earlier in the day Tuesday, when an unknown gunman fired several shots into a local Bush-Cheney campaign office. On Wednesday, a Bush campaign office in Kentucky was hit. In Maryland, large "Bush/Cheney" campaign signs have been burned.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 8, 2004 03:24 PM

Thank you

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 09:12 AM

No your wrong, any pens or paper must be placed by the staff not the candidates. Another example of how the rules should be bent for Kerry.

Posted by: Wayne at October 8, 2004 04:06 PM

There is no peace in the middle east Wayne. There is complete Chaos!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 8, 2004 09:08 AM

Hey Wayne!!!!

You're a closet Democrat! You're a closet Democrat!

Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 07:46 AM

Nobody can tell me that they are not the same people. 2 pesimistic idiots sharing 1 body.

Posted by: Wayne at October 8, 2004 04:12 PM

Commissioner for Human Rights 2004
Armenia 2004
Austria 2004
Bahrain 2004
Chile 2004
Croatia 2004
France 2004
Mexico 2004
Pakistan 2004
Republic of Korea 2004
Sierra Leone 2004
Sudan 2004
Sweden 2004
Togo 2004
Uganda 2004

2002 UN Resolution
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the minister for foreign affairs of Iraq addressed to the secretary-general is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,

Commending the secretary-general and the members of the League of Arab States and its secretary-general for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to presidential sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient U.N. security guards:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;

9. Requests the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

"Iraq's acceptance of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program was the foundation of Iraq's economic recovery and sparked a flow of illicitly diverted funds that could be applied to projects for Iraq's chemical industry."

Charles Duelfer, the former U.N.-Iraq arms inspector

The above list of nations on the human rights commision, the UN Resolution and combined with the above statement by Duelfer make Kofi Annan's assertion that the War in Iraq is illegal irrelevant.

Assertions that the war in Iraq are Illegal are biased and without merit. We are a sovereign nation that has a right to defend our nation against aggression.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 04:52 PM

JM,
You said, Remember, your "facts' about Kerry pulling something out of his pocket, by your definition, is also opinion? All you can say is that it was something pulled from his pocket trying to make it appear that he was cheating.

No I can say that it was a pen that was pulled from his pocket. That's a fact. You can find it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134489,00.html However, you are saying Bush was wired. You don't know that for a fact. It looks like something sticking out, but it has not been proven what it is. It may be nothing.

The rules state: No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate. Tangible: Discernible by the touch; palpable, Possible to touch

You said, You jumped the gun with the hope that John Kerry was cheating. You made it appear factual, when in fact, it was only a pen which was permissible in the first place.

I never said John Kerry was cheating. What I said was that he violated the debate rules. It was factual. Pen's are only permissible when given ahead of time. Read debate rules.
I rest my case!!

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 8, 2004 05:06 PM

While you guys debate the conspiracy theories...

Here's John Carrie's view on Education: Dump more money into the schools.

The kids in the schools are not reading the books they already have because they think it's not cool to read and be smart.

I saw it when I went to public schools and I see it in many kids today.

They think that it's not cool to be a businessman or an administrator or a scientist or a postal worker or a cop or a construction worker. They think these people are lame and are to be ridiculed. Instead, they think that fashion models have a "realistic, progressive perspective".

You can put all of the money you want into the schools and poor results will not change until the culture changes. Our current group of students obsessed with rotten popular culture will not be able to compete with others in math and science and business in the future years.

It's up to the children of the Bush-supporters to carry us into the futures in the industries that matter the most. According to the latest polls, that's roughly 49% of America's children.

The Democratic Left would have you believe that the Bush-supporting parents are all stupid morons, but think a minute about who's children I was describing above.

Vote for Bush next month.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 8, 2004 11:57 PM

President Bush won the 2nd debate, I am one that supports President Bush and thought he lost the last debate on style. He won on style and substance this time around. Vote for a leader President George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Thank you.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 8, 2004 11:57 PM

Here's some more of Kerry and the Left's message:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040929/ap_on_el_ge/hud_secretary_black_voters&e=3

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 9, 2004 12:22 AM

For some perspective on the stock market during the Bush Presidency, check out the following link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

If that does not work, go to yahoo finance and pull up a 5-year chart for the Dow Jones.

Look at September 11th, and then look at the constant growth in the stock market since then. It's practically a miracle. We could have cowered and fizzled out as a nation, but we continued to work hard and we continue to work hard to grow this nation each day.

Don't listen to the Kerry camp. They are trying to convinCe you that America is not the greatest country in the world. It's a lie. The United States of America IS the greatest nation in the world.

President Bush has continued to carry out the long, consistent, historical policy of the United States to confront tyranny and to free people in other nations. France, Germany, Poland, Japan, The Phillipines, El Salvador... The list goes on and on. Some countries have repayed us better than others.

Iraq was not a mistake. Don't teach your children that it was. Freedom is worth fighting for.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 9, 2004 12:33 AM

Jim Rodkey,
I was thinking of answering this POST but then I noticed that the part I wanted to respond to was not even a sentence. Are you trying to say that some AFL-CIO members assaulted a Republican Headquarters on Tuesday?

Could you give me some more facts regarding this? I would like to look into this matter if you do that. It's rare that Union members engage in illegal activities.

Your condensed POST follows:

"...And while Democrats are crying about voting rights in Florida the AFL-CIO, which Abel is so proud of defending, assaulted a Republican Headquarters on Tuesday..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 8, 2004 03:24 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 12:45 AM

Here's how the Dow Jones Industrial Average has changed since one year after September 11th, 2001.

9/11/02: 8581

Today: 10,055

2 years, 1500 points. Not a bad average for a President who is supposedly not growing the economy.

The Dems are just unrealistic and impatient if they expect any more than that. Same with Iraq. The hard work that is being done over there takes a lot of time. Most importantly, it requires support and resolve.

Vote for President Bush. Strong and steady leadership and growth

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 9, 2004 12:47 AM

I just finished watching the second debate between John Kerry and George Bush and as much as I liked and appreciated the way that John Kerry handled himself debating George Bush, I have to admit that George Bush did an acceptable job---not at all like in their first debate.

I am not at all like the HH pro-Bushite Republicans who always claim that their man won. To be fair, I think that, at best, this second Kerry/Bush debate was a tie. Like I said, it wasn't at all, anything like the first Kerry/Bush debate last week in which Kerry won that one, by far.

Knowing the Hero Hating pro-Bushites, I know that they are going to claim that George Bush won this debate for the Republicans. It's too bad that they never appear to be honest and truthful about anything. OK, to repeat, I hereby declare the second Kerry/Bush debate a tie.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 01:03 AM

Here is the truth.....

The Bible says.. That being gay is an ABOMINATION!
you Cant say anything to change that!
Abortion is MURDER plain and simple!
you cant change that!

If you say you are a Christian and vote for somebody who supports that... you are voting for evil and turning away from GOD.

and you cant change that!

If you vote for Kerry then you are NO Christian.
I dont like Bush that much but I will not Vote for Evil!
plain and simple.

BUSH 2004!

Posted by: John at October 9, 2004 01:35 AM

Abel

I was surprized you said the debate was a tie. I think G.W. won by a hair. But you are more objective than I have given you credit for and I believe you are fair. I am sure on substance you think Kerry carried the day as I believe Bush did but you have been fair and I for one who has taken you to task before say you were and are fair concidering the place you come from a very pro Kerry position. As I am very Pro Bush. Vote for Bush/Cheney thanks

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 9, 2004 03:25 AM

Bush improved in this debate, but I still do not support his policies. The most telling part of the debate was the last question posed to Mr. Bush. He didn't answer the question about naming three things that he felt were mistakes. Why? Because Mr. Bush is "always" right on all issues and he can never admit to any mistake. It takes a big man to point out somebody else's mistakes, but it takes a bigger man to admit to his own. I don't know one person in this world who is always right. George Bush is far from perfect and I find it kind of scarey that he can't admit to being wrong about anything.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 06:54 AM

ShoemakerM:

Was it unrealistic for Americans, back just before 9/11, to feel safe and secure in this country? September 11th occurred on George Bush's watch. What was going on in his administration? Was it a problem with intelligence gathering? Whatever it was, it happened under this President. He had a responsibility to keep terrorism at bay and he failed. So what does he do? He attacks Iraq! Does this show that he is protecting America? I don't think so. The world is an even more dangerous place. You can talk about fighting terror "over there" all you want. We need to be doing things over here, too, and they are not being done satisfactorily. Why are our borders still so porous? Why is only 5% of all containers that are imported into this country inspected? The Bush administration failed us then and they are failing us now.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:02 AM

All you democrats like Abel,Jones,Louis, what on earth is wrong with adoption as an alternative to abortion?

There are so many mothers in the United States that are unable to become pregnant and who want to have a family. I also have plenty of friends that have been adopted. Do you ever notice that the people that are pro abortion are people that are living. Kerry said in the debate last night that he is Catholic but can not support Catholics view on abortion because that will offend other peoples religious views like atheism. These people have no religious views. Really listen and understand what Kerry said.

I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

This is why Kerry is unfit to be president. He will be unable to make tough decisions because he will be worried that his decision will effect other peoples feelings. Kerry Im sorry its a fact of life that if you make one decision that benefits one person it going to be non-beneficial to another. You might as well vote for something that you believe in. Like someone else thats posted previous
Say what you believe or I won't believe what you say.

Posted by: Mike NY at October 9, 2004 07:23 AM

ShoemakerM:

Your post about the Dow Industrial Average is pure self-serving BS.

The Dow closed at 11,522.56 on January 7th, 2000. On September 7th, 2001, the DOW stood at 9,605.85. It had already tumbled almost 2000 points in the first 9 months of the Bush presidency (even before 9/11). The tragedy on 9/11 caused an already faltering average to tumble even further. That is the typical reaction to a catastrophic event. You are using a lowball figure to show such a drastic correction. Remove the effects of 9/11 from you post and maybe it would be more realistic. The fact is that when President Bush was inaugurated, the Dow was over 11,000. Today, it stands at barely over 10,000. I would have been much more impressed if the DOW was above the 11,500 mark as was the case when Bush took (stole) office.
-------------------------------------------------
2000 Jan 07 Rises 269.30 to close at 11,522.56, first close above 11,500.00.

Jan 14, 2000 Rises 140.55 to close at all time high of 11,722.98, first close above 11,600.00 and 11,700.00.

Mar 07, 2000 Falls 60.50 to close at 9,796.03 for a YTD low completing a tumble of 16.48% from Jan 14.

Mar 16, 2000 Rises 499.19 to close at 10,630.39, largest dollar gain in history, up 4.93%.

Apr 14, 2000 Falls 617.78 to close at 10,305.77, second largest dollar loss in history, down 5.66%.

2001 May 21 Rises 36.18 to close at 11,372.92 recovering 1,983.44 (85%) of the 2,333.50 decline since Jan 14, 2000.

Sep 07, 2001 Falls 234.99 to close at 9,605.85 falling 1,767.07 (15.5%) since May 21, 2001.

Sep 11, 2001 Markets closed because of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.
Markets will re-open September 17, 2001 after being closed for 4 trading days. The last time that U.S. stock trading was suspended for more than two sessions occurred in March 1933, when
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a nationwide bank holiday to prevent a run on the banks.

Sep 17, 2001 Falls 684.81 to close at 8,920.70, largest dollar loss in history, down 7.13%.

Sep 21, 2001 Falls 140.40 to close at 8,235.81, eliminating all gains since July 30, 1997, over 4 years ago.

Since May 21, 2001 the market has declined 3,137.11 for a percentage loss of 27.58. In the one week since the terrorist attack the market has declined 1,369.70 for a percentage loss of 14.26%.

2002 Jul 23 Falls 82.24 to close at 7,702.34. The market has declined 4,020.64, or 34%, since January 14, 2000.

Jul 24, 2002 Rises 488.95 to close at 8,191.29, second largest dollar gain in history, up 6.35%.

Jul 29, 2002 Rises 447.49 to close at 8,711.88, third largest dollar gain in history, up 5.41%.

Oct 09, 2002 Falls 215.22 to close at 7,286.27. The market has declined 4,436.71, or 38%, since January 14, 2000.

Oct 15,2002 Rises 378.28 to close at 8,255.28 to close once again above 8,000.

Oct 21,2002 Rises 215.84 to close at 8,538.24 to close once again above 8,500.

2003 June, 04 Rises 116.03 to close at 9,038.98 to close once again above 9,000.

Sep 02,2003 Rises 107.45 to close at 9,523.27 to close once again above 9,500.

Dec 11, 2003 Rises 86.30 to close at 10,008.16, first close above 10,000 since May 27, 2002.
-------------------------------------------------

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:25 AM

Christina,

I suppose what was sticking out of Bush's jacket was a gigantic mole on his back? You talk about a stupid pen. You can't explain away what is in that picture of Mr. Bush on the first debate night, can you? I don't care if you say that no one knows what it was. What you do know is that it shouldn't have been there. Your are petty and smug. Now, I rest my case.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:31 AM

ShoemakerM:

You know, you talk about public education and how bad students can be, etc. You are not even spelling John Kerry's name correctly. I don't like to point out normal spelling mistakes, but with all of the information being posted here that actually uses John Kerry's name, you have still not figured out the correct spelling of his name? That is sad.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:34 AM

Christina:

You are also playing semantics. You are implying that "violating debate rules" is cheating.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:37 AM

Abel,
I agree with you on the first debate, I think Cheney won the Vp debate and this one was very close. Let's see what people think after they have had a chance to digest both candidates answers. When this happens I think Bush will come out slightly ahead. I feel sorry for Kerry in the 3rd debate, Bush is going to be all over his voting record.

Posted by: Wayne at October 9, 2004 09:31 AM

Abel you can check out the news article about the attack on the headquarters in Orlando at

http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 9, 2004 10:47 AM

The second debate might be considered by some to be a tie but I disagree. John Kerry quoted several people in a put down of the president but many of the same people he quoted are voting for George Bush, not John Kerry. John Kerry evaded several questions on the economy, which was supposed to be his strong points. Bush held his own. Both sides spun, which is the world of politics, but the Kerry side went further in their spins and went into the realm of lying while trying to nuance the voting record of the Senator.

While some call the President's supporters Hero Haters, it's just another smoke screen against the issues. We support the President because we believe he will do a better job, not because we hate John Kerry. There are a lot of people who are heroes that would make lousy Presidents. The President and Vice-President have stated they are grateful for the service of John Kerry in Vietnam, they thanked him and said he served honorably. John Kerry made his Vietnam service an issue and it drew attention that resulted in the exposure of several elements of John Kerry's stories about Vietnam that can't be backed up with actual facts. We aren't being asked to vote for a hero, we are being asked to vote for a President. Based on the state of the Union when the President took office, understanding the events of the recession the began six months before Bush became President and the attack on American soil on 911, and then seeing where we are now and the trends in the economy as well as the focus on the war on terror, the President has my support. It's not based on anything John Kerry did in Vietnam. It is based on what John Kerry did as A Senator when he decided to show up.

John Kerry, who said he is proud of his record in the Senate, rarely talks about it and then when that record is called liberal, he cries foul and says it's name-calling. What is he afraid of? He is a Liberal and if he really believes in the things he is voting for, he should be proud of that. I'm a conservative, i'm not ashamed of that or of being called a conservative.

I believe the President won this debate because, as he said, the record of John Kerry as a Senator can not be argued with, it can not be ignored, glossed over or nuanced. We have the big picture of John Kerry's position. He boastfully stated that he was one of three democrats who broke from the Party to balance the budget. What he didn't say was why? The wind was blowing and American's made it clear, in the polls, that they wanted a balanced budget and they cleaned house of the Democrats and put Republicans in control. The wind was blowing and John Kerry went the direction of the polling winds. That was an isolated incident, when you look at the overall voting record, when John Kerry could hide behind his anonymity, he voted liberal and he voted more liberal more often than any other Senator. That's why we don't want him as our President.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 9, 2004 11:32 AM

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 8, 2004 11:57 PM

President Bush won the 2nd debate

HAHAHA! You people are so much in denial! ABC polls and the morning web site polls report Kerry won the Debate 47% to 41%.

GO PRESIDENT KERRY!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 9, 2004 11:35 AM

Abel - You declare it a tie. Well thanks for being their for us. We might not survive without your declerations. As an honest person who admitted Bush did not win the first debate I would say Bush won this debate. You talk of honesty and bias, but you calling this a draw definitely means Bush won.

Posted by: JD at October 9, 2004 11:52 AM

As a Christian I could NEVER vote for someone who supports partial birth abortion. The abortion rights champions will do anything to stop YOU from finding out just what takes place during a partial birth. I am a nurse and I know. It is nothing less than the murder of a viable fetus during delivery. Because the fetus is dead before delivery is complete it is legal. This is barbaric and future generations will judge us VERY harshly for our failure to rise up and put a stop to such an evil practice.

Posted by: kathy at October 9, 2004 12:38 PM

Two presidential debates and two clear wins. John Kerry is going to be the next president of the United States, and more people know it now than just two short hours ago.

Tonight, George Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people. Again he failed.

Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq.
Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care.
Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist.
Again, he refused to level with the American people.
George Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it.

I am looking forward with excitment to see Sentor Kerry take the oath of office as ELECTED U.S. President.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 9, 2004 02:03 PM

Abel: It's rare that Union members engage in illegal activities

What world do you live in. A combined attact on republican headquarters. Pushing through the doors injuring a staffer. Ya I would say illegal.
Large labor unions are tie with the mafia by history at least. May of cleaned up thier act, by now but it's still too early to say for sure.

Union membership is 40% republican and the union steels dues and give it all to democrates. That should be call theft, or at least misapropreation.

Vote for a leader not a deceiver Bush/Cheney 04

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 9, 2004 02:09 PM

Posted by: John at October 9, 2004 01:35 AM

If you vote for Kerry then you are NO Christian.

John,

That is a very hypocrital statement and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's not the Governments job to decide who is Christian and who's not. I view GW JR as Satan sidekick with his hate policies. Killing innocent Iraq Children is murder and GW JR doesn't have the Power of God to bring them back to life as a result of his mistake.

Gillespie said same-sex marriage is a legitimate issue in the election. President Bush has proposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Democratic Sen. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage but said a constitutional amendment is going too far.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 9, 2004 02:20 PM

Kathy:

I agree that abortion is horrible. Now I have a question for you. Is the life of a fetus any more important than the life of an innocent victim in Iraq? We only hear about the battlefield casualties in Iraq, but rarely hear about the innocent civilian victims. That is one thing that I don't understand about pro-life people in general, many of whom also support the death penalty. I believe in the sanctity of life for everyone. I don't think that it is a pick and choose issue as to which life is important and which is not important.

The war in Iraq is also a form of evil and that should be acknowledged.

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 06:14 PM

JM,

I misspelled his name on purpose. He reminds me of the movie "Carrie", because his defeatist policies are scary as hell.

You also wrote: "Remove the effects of 9/11 from you post and maybe it would be more realistic. "

Sorry, but that's not possible. 9/11 was very real and to remove the effects of it as it pertains to the economy is a worthless mental exercise. 9/11 had an enormous impact on our economy and that impact was felt over the following year as corporations and the public at large shifted to a more security-oriented mentality. That's why I used 9/11/02 as a barometer.

You also mentioned that the Dow Jones had tumbled nearly 2000 points in the first 9 months of the Bush presidency. It's a rather narrow-minded perspective to think that a president has an effect on the economy at large while in his first 9 months. The economy does not move that quickly. That's like the guy who posted a few months ago that he lost his job in early 2001 and he blamed Bush. It's silly.

Even with your flawed reasoning, if you are willing to blame Bush for the falling economy in his first 9 months, then why are you not willing to give him credit for the nearly 2 million jobs that have been created over the last year?

Don't vote for Scary Carrie

Vote for Bush/Cheney

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 9, 2004 07:09 PM

JM,

Get over the Bush stole the office routine it is old. Bush inherited a recession, on the move, with an economy sitting on a bubble. It is nothing short of a miracle thar the Dow is over 10000.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 9, 2004 07:45 PM

JM,
You said, Christina:

You are also playing semantics. You are implying that "violating debate rules" is cheating.

That's your opinion!!!!!!!

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 9, 2004 09:00 PM

John,
CRAZY POST, now please tell us about whether or not what George W. Bush is doing in Iraq holy and blessed?

Consider all the Iraqi men, women, and children who have been killed and injured due to our constant bombing.
You can't change that.

Consider also the countless numbers of condemned prisoners being killed by our American states?
You can't change that.

The truth is that George W. Bush, while Governor of Texas, had more condemned prisoners killed than any other state.
You can't change that.

Why is the killing done by George W. Bush OK, and being pro-Choice not OK.

Remember that being pro-Choice and being pro-Abortion are not the same thing.
John Kerry is pro-Choice, not pro-Abortion.
You can't change that.

I hereby declare that it's OK for Christians to vote for John Kerry!
You can't change that.

Your very dumb "You can't change that" POST follows:

"Here is the truth.....
The Bible says.. That being gay is an ABOMINATION!
you Cant say anything to change that!
Abortion is MURDER plain and simple!
you cant change that!
If you say you are a Christian and vote for somebody who supports that... you are voting for evil and turning away from GOD.
and you cant change that!
If you vote for Kerry then you are NO Christian.
I dont like Bush that much but I will not Vote for Evil!
plain and simple.
BUSH 2004!"
Posted by: John at October 9, 2004 01:35 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 10:22 PM

Chris:

Facts please. I don't want to hear your opinions about the stock market. Keep it to the facts, right Christina?

Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 11:59 PM

ShoemakerM,

Jobs? Where and what type? My understanding is that is the first president to have a net loss of jobs during his presidency. Don't hype his effect on the job market because it is a BIG negative.

You are absolutely right about your comment about being surprised about the Dow being over 10,000 today. I am surprised, too, but for a much different reason :).

Posted by: JM at October 10, 2004 12:04 AM

Walmart if selling the answer to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 for $10.00. It's called Fahrenhype 911. Before you cast your vote, see this film. Before you allow your truth to be conveyed to you by the Michael Moore's of this world, see this film. It includes real interviews with people Moore used in the film and it allows them to tell their story, the truth, not the deceptions of Monsieur Moore. If you've seen Fahrenheit, you HAVE to see this film as well and if you've been deceived by Moore, thank him for the sick feeling you'll have in your stomach for beleiving his peice of terrorist propaganda. It lays out who is really behind the oil for profit scam that Moore tries to place in Bush's lap. Michael Moore is a disgrace and I'll never watch another film made by him until he apologizes to ALL AMERICA.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 10, 2004 12:06 AM

I think it is funny all the liberals trying to get Bush to tell them mistakes that he made so they can pound him on them. What mistakes has Kerry admitted to Jane Fonda apologised for some of whacked out actions in Vietnam But the best Kerry can do is say some of his were over the top. Kerry has no backbone no principles from which he can lead he goes with what he believes will be best for him

Posted by: wpnsgy at October 10, 2004 01:11 AM

D Jones

Have you ever seen Bush carrying a loaded shotgun in a public area where thousands have gathered.
Have you ever seen Saddam Hussain carrying a loaded shotgun in a public area where thousands have gathered
You view President Bush "as Satan sidekick with his hate policies. Killing innocent Iraq Children is murder" Have you not heard about people getting their tongues, fingers, hands cut off. Iraqies themselves have witnessed this and have have told their hardships which have been on every news channel. Dont you beleive that these people should be free. Beheadings of innocent people are taking place today.
You really should be ashamed of yourself for believing that an American president goes out of his way to attack innocent children. Its the terrorist that use children to hide behind. Why can you not comprehend this? Honestly D Jones what your saying is you would rather live in a country that promotes violence rather than live under George Bush who is trying to kill these thugs.

Posted by: Mike at October 10, 2004 01:40 AM

Suppose Kerry gets to be president and tries (and notice the word tries)to bring the allies that did not support us, Germany, France, Soviet Union into the war. Now keep in mind that the trial of Saddam Hussain still has to take place. During the course of the trial Saddam Hussein is infuriated with our allies for joining the war and spills out everything known about the oil for food program. He mentions the weapons Iraq received in exchange. Hell he might even mention who helped him with getting the weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq. Could this be the reason why France Germany and Russia will not help us now or will ever help us.

Posted by: Mike at October 10, 2004 01:42 AM

Look at Bush's record...lost almost a million jobs, more than any other president in over 70 years, took a 5.6 trillion surplus and put us in debt almost 3 trillion dollars. Do you run your finances that way?? Lied about WMD and now our soldiers are losing their lives and we are spending billions of $$$ to rebuild. Hey, that money could be spent here to help our people. He has loosened laws on the environment. I could go on and on. Bush has had 4 years to prove himself. Sorry, he is a big loser. Let's get this country going in the right direction again. Go Kerry!!!

Posted by: Nicky at October 10, 2004 10:38 AM

I post the following for those who insist that Teresa Kerry own's the Heinz Corporation and that she therefore promotes outsourcing of jobs. THESE ARE FACTS THAT BUSH SUPPORTERS MASSAGE, BUTCHER AND MODIFY TO FIT THEIR PURPOSES. This one's for you Chris! Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------
Origins: In 1995, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts wed Teresa Heinz, whom he first met at an Earth Day rally in 1990. Born Teresa Sim�es-Ferreira in Mozambique to Portuguese parents, Mrs. Kerry was previously married for 25 years to Henry John Heinz III, who was a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company and represented Pennsylvania for twenty years in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate prior to his death in a plane crash in 1991. Mrs. Kerry inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million.

Although Senator Kerry has been critical of the Bush administration for rewarding "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who move "profits and jobs overseas," the above-quoted attempt to link Kerry (through his wife) with the very outsourcing he decries is flawed in two major ways. First off, Teresa Heinz Kerry does not "own the Heinz Corporation" � she has no involvement whatsoever with the management or operations of the H.J. Heinz Company, nor does she own anything close to a controlling interest of the company's stock. According to Heinz itself, the Heinz family trust which Mrs. Kerry inherited sold most of its shares of Heinz stock back in 1995 and currently holds less than a 4% interest in the company:

Neither Mrs. Heinz Kerry nor Senator Kerry nor any of the Heinz trusts or endowments � either individually or collectively � holds a significant percentage of shares of the H.J. Heinz Company. In 1995 the Heinz Endowments and family trusts sold a large percentage of Heinz shares in a secondary share offering to diversify their holdings. As a result, their current holdings are under 4 percent.

There is no connection between any philanthropic programs of the H.J. Heinz Company and its Foundation and the Heinz family interests (including the Howard Heinz Endowment, the Vira Heinz Endowment, and the Heinz Family Philanthropies).
(A 4% stake in a company as large as Heinz still represents a considerable amount of money, but it isn't nearly large enough a share to give the holder any significant control or influence over the company's business decisions.)

Moreover, the Heinz Company's operations are not an example of the type of outsourcing that is currently a hot political issue (i.e., sending out work to offshore companies to provide services which a company might otherwise have employed its own staff to perform). Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas. (It makes little sense from either an economic or a freshness standpoint to be shipping fruits and vegetables and/or finished food products halfway around the world rather than producing them locally.) One wouldn't expect, for example, every can and bottle of Coca-Cola sold anywhere in the world � whether it be Australia, China, or Portugal � to be produced by U.S. bottlers.)

As the H.J. Heinz Company notes, well over half its sales come from foreign markets, and it therefore operates overseas facilities to serve those markets:

Currently, 60% of the sales of the H.J. Heinz Company are outside the United States and to accommodate those customers by providing facilities closer to those markets, the company maintains a number of overseas facilities that provide products for consumers in those markets. This allows Heinz to pack the freshest ingredients, tailor its recipes to local tastes and deliver the finished products in a timely and efficient manner. In the United States, Heinz makes its flagship ketchup in factories in Fremont, Ohio; Muscatine, Iowa; and Stockton, California.
Last updated: 30 March 2004

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend

Urban Legends Reference Pages � 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

Posted by: JM at October 10, 2004 11:00 AM

Just a fact I would like somebody to answer:
Several months ago, John Kerry was DENIED COMMUNION in a CATHOLIC church AS HE FAVORS "ALL KIND OF ABORTIONS", no matter what the age of the baby is.
Meaning.....you can KILL your UNBORN 8 months baby under John Kerry's standards.
Now, the question is.:
-WHY IS HE BRINGING UP THAT HE IS A CATHOLIC WHEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS 'NOT' RECOGNIZING HIM AS A "TRUE" CATHOLIC.?
The "FACT" is, when a Catholic Priest is DENIYING YOU COMMUNION is because YOU ARE IN GRAVE SIN...
Shame on you....John Kerry...

Posted by: Riccardo at October 10, 2004 12:29 PM

For the George Bush supporters:

Bob Barr
Some conservative Republicans have had enough of George Bush's violation of some of their core principles. Here's a column from Bob Barr of Georgia, who represented parts of Cobb County and northwest Georgia in Congress from 1995 to 2003. Barr was known as one of the most conservative members of Congress during his tenure.

**********

An agonizing choice

Conservatives have plenty of cause to abandon Bush

BY BOB BARR

Voting for president used to be so easy, at least for a conservative. There was the Republican candidate. You knew he generally stood for lower taxes, less government spending, giving fewer powers to the government, lower deficits and a zealous regard for individual privacy.

Then, there was the Democrat. You knew he generally stood for higher taxes, more government and deficit spending, and a zealous regard for civil liberties.

Throughout my own presidential voting history, the choices have rarely, if ever, been agonizing. Nixon vs. McGovern? Carter vs. Reagan? Reagan-Mondale? Dukakis, a Massachusetts liberal? Clinton? Al Gore? Ah, the good ol' days. Each of those races presented clear choices, easily resolved.

Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone.

What's making the contest so difficult? It's certainly not that both candidates are so conservative that we have a choice of riches. It's not even that John Kerry is sort of right wing compared to George W. Bush. The incumbent clearly is the more "conservative" of the two.

But the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).

When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had -- through discipline and tough votes -- whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times.

Instead, what we got were record levels of new spending, including nearly double-digit increases in nondefense discretionary spending. We now have deficits exceeding those that the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years faced when it convened in January 1995.

The oft-repeated mantra that "the terrorists made us spend more" rings hollow, especially to those who actually understand that increases in nondefense discretionary spending are not the inevitable result of fighting terrorists. It also irritates many conservatives, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, that so much of defense spending is being poured into the black hole of Iraq's internal security, while the security of our own borders goes wanting.

That brings us to the second major beef conservatives have with the president. He's seen as failing to take real steps to improve our border security. In many respects, because of his apparent desire to appease his compadre to the south -- Mexican President Vincente Fox -- Bush has made matters worse. More people are entering our country illegally than ever before, more than 3 million this year alone -- and most of them are stampeding across from Mexico.

It seems as if every time an effort is made to implement measures that would crack down on illegal immigration, Fox complains, and the White House tells our enforcement folks to back off. Perhaps that is why intelligence reports indicate al-Qaeda is actively recruiting in Central America.

At the same time, here at home, many law-abiding citizens accurately perceive that their own freedoms and civil liberties are being stripped. They are being profiled by government computers whenever they want to travel, their bank accounts are being summarily closed because they may fit some "profile," they are under surveillance by cameras paid for by that borrowed federal money, and, if the administration has its way, they will be forced to carry a national identification card. That skewed sense of priorities really rankles conservatives.

Those are but three tips of the iceberg that signal the deep dissatisfaction many conservatives harbor against the president. Thus far, however, with Bush's political gurus telling him he's ahead and to just lay low and not make any major gaffes, he seems unwilling to recognize the problems on his right flank. Or he seems to have concluded that he doesn't need to address those concerns because the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign hasn't forced him to.

But the race appears to be tightening again. It's likely to remain tight until Election Day. Those dissatisfied conservative voters will become increasingly important, but it's going to be impossible for the president to pull them back in with hollow, last-minute promises.

Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.

History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do.

Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again

Posted by: JM at October 10, 2004 12:55 PM

I just completed my zogby poll, and it's looking good for Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards! Yea!

(Utica, NY)- As the candidates prepare for the second presidential debate, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are locked in a statistical dead heat (46%-45%), according to a new Reuters/Zogby daily tracking poll. The telephone poll of 1216 likely voters was conducted from Tuesday through Thursday (October 5-7,2004). The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points

President Bush and Senator Kerry are continuing their statistical tie with their unfavorable rating tied at 45% and their favorable ratings at 54% for Mr. Bush and 52% for Mr. Kerry. Mr. Bush is holding a lead among southern voters (59%); those between the ages of 30-49 (64%); rural voters (65%); and NASCAR fans (61%). Mr. Kerry is finding his support among 18-24 year olds (77%); and those over 70 (57%); African Americans (92%); women (54%); union members (67%) and singles (73%).

When undecided respondents were asked to identify the candidate that they are leaning toward, Kerry showed a slight edge. More than two in five (44%) still report that they remain undecided though. These are among the most important voters the candidates will be reaching out to during the debate.

President�s Job Performance Rating %

The President�s job performance rating reflects slightly less than half the voters approving (47%) and slightly more than half disapproving (53%). His support is strongest among those in the south (52%); and the central great lakes (54%); Whites (53%); Born Again Christians (66%); married individuals (54%) and those earning more than 75K (54%).

US Direction- Right or Wrong %

When asked to describe the direction the country is headed in, respondents were divided with 45% saying the country is headed in the wrong direction and 48% saying the right direction. Again, the Bush supporters are in the south (52%), and the central great lakes (49%). They tend to be: between the ages of 30-49 (53%); members of the investor class (48%); White (49%); and Republican (80%). Those who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction tend to be: from the east (57%) and west (55%); African American (74%); women (49%) and union members (56%).

President Re-elect or Time for Someone New %

Here, half the respondents are looking for someone new to lead the country. Those who believe the President should return to the White House for four more years, include: southerners (51%); those ages 30-49 (52%); Whites (51%); Republicans (88%) and Protestants (57%). Individuals looking for someone new include: easterners (59%); westerners (55%); 18-29 year olds (64%); 50-64 year olds (53%); those who do not consider themselves investor class (51%), members of the military (53%) and African Americans (88%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Yesterday a major national newspaper ran a column suggesting that the debates are not important. Just look at these numbers and it is hard to draw that conclusion. In today�s figures Kerry is reaching 80% support among democrats, though he will still need more support. The president polls 89% of republicans but independents are almost evenly split (with Kerry barely leading, 44%-41%).

The two candidates are in a dead heat among Catholics. Remember that Bill Clinton won Catholics by double-digits and Al Gore beat Bush 51%-46% among Catholics in 2000.

Bush leads Kerry among self-identified investors by only 7 points (51%-44%). Remember that he needs to win this group by double-digits.

Kerry is doing very well among both Hispanics and African-Americans.

As of today, it is a .7 percent race with the president still receiving a negative job performance and a negative re-elect".

Zogby International conducted interviews of 1216 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 10/5/04 thru 10/7/04. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

In 1996, John Zogby came within one-tenth of 1 percent of the presidential result. Since 1996, Zogby has polled for Reuters News Agency, the largest news agency in the world. The latest results and analysis of the Zogby polls, and exclusive interviews with John Zogby are available on Reuters.com. The site provides comprehensive coverage of the campaigns, including a special video service, which compares the position of both candidates on key policy issues./

The polls are looking good for Senator Kerry!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 President Kerry and Vice President Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 10, 2004 05:06 PM

Kathy,

One more time---Kerry does not support partial birth Abortion. As a matter of fact, Kerry doesn't support any kind of Abortion.

Kerry is pro-Choice. Pro-Choice is not the same thing as pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice is for allowing women to have the final word regarding their own bodies. Pro-Choice is against passing a federal law that would punish a woman and her doctor should the woman decide to have an abortion and requests her doctor to perform the procedure. Are you sure you would like to see this woman and her doctor serving time in prison?

I know this issue is very difficult for Hero Hating pro-Bushite Republicans to understand---I hope that you're not one of them.

Please think about this carefully and consider if a prison is the right place for a woman and her doctor if she requests her doctor to perform an abortion procedure on her. My warmest regards to you.

Your POST follows:

"As a Christian I could NEVER vote for someone who supports partial birth abortion. The abortion rights champions will do anything to stop YOU from finding out just what takes place during a partial birth. I am a nurse and I know. It is nothing less than the murder of a viable fetus during delivery. Because the fetus is dead before delivery is complete it is legal. This is barbaric and future generations will judge us VERY harshly for our failure to rise up and put a stop to such an evil practice."
Posted by: kathy at October 9, 2004 12:38 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 10, 2004 06:50 PM

JM,

You wrote: "The war in Iraq is also a form of evil and that should be acknowledged."

If you believe this then you should vote for Ralph Nader. In addition, you had better be prepared to call our American GI's "evildoers". John Fonda Kerry had no problem doing that 30 years ago. I guess it's just another flip-flop that he's not calling our current soldiers "war-criminals".

There is plenty of evil over in Iraq but it's not being perpetrated by us. Don't try to pin that on Bush and the USA.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 10, 2004 07:32 PM

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Electoral College

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States is the oldest continuously functioning democracy in the world. Its constitution was ratified in 1788 and has been amended only 27 times since then. The first 10 of these amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were approved in 1790. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult procedure, as described near the end of this page.

The procedure for electing a president is spelled out in Article II. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to that state's representation in Congress (Senate + House). Since each state has two senators and at least one Representative, every state has at least three electors. Currently California has the largest number of electors: 55. The electors meet in their respective state capitals in December of each election year to cast their votes for president and vice president. These electors, who together form the electoral college, are the ones who actually elect the president. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the president, with each state having one vote. This happened in 1800 and again in 1824.

Each state is free to choose its electors as it wishes. In the 18th Century, America was largely rural and most people were farmers who knew little about politics. In this climate, a direct election of the president would probably have been difficult in any case. In the early days of the nation, electors were chosen due to their wisdom and knowledge of politics, not due to their preference for any particular candidate. Even in the modern world, direct election of a distant president is not always so easy. For example, the European Union does not have a direct election for its president. Instead, a complex system exists in which countries, not citizens, are the key players, exactly like the role of the states in the U.S.

Each state determines how its electors are chosen by state law and the process varies from state to state. In states with primary elections, each presidential candidate usually designates a slate of electors who then appear on the November ballot. The voters are then actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to one candidate or another. In caucus states, the electors may be chosen at the state caucus. Electors are actual human beings, with houses, children, jobs, and very occasionally, their own opinions. In most states, the slate of electors that gets the most votes wins and gets to travel to the state capital in December to vote for president and vice president. In the bitterly contested election in Florida in 2000, George Bush carried the state by 537 votes out of over six million cast, and thus got all 25 of Florida's electoral votes. Since it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that actually elects the president, keeping track of it is crucial for people who want to know how the campaign is going. This website is designed to make it easy to track the electoral vote.

Many criticisms have been leveled at this 18th Century system. First, why have electoral votes at all? Why not just elect the president by popular vote? The reason this system has never changed is simple: politics. States with many buffalo and few people, like Wyoming, benefit from it and are not keen on changing it. Since every state gets at least three electors, low-population states have proportionally far more political power than they would have in a direct election system. The number of voters per elector is about four times smaller in the three-elector states than in the most-populous states, as shown in this table. The fact that nearly all the low-population states are heavily Republican adds to the difficulties of changing the system. Direct election of the president would eliminate the current bias in favor of the Republicans.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult process requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Even in 1788, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians often made outrageous promises. They wanted to make sure the constitution, which most Americans regard as sacred, could only be changed when there was a massive consensus in favor of the change. To give a modern example, president George W. Bush has called for a constitutional amendment stating that a marriage shall be a union between exactly one man and one woman. The Founding Fathers well understood that political slogans like this should not find their way into the constitution too easily, so they made the process very difficult. Changing the electoral college system will not be easy.

A second criticism of the electoral college is its winner-take-all character. If Florida's 25 electoral votes had been split 13 for George Bush and 12 for Al Gore, then Al Gore would now be president. There is nothing in the constitution mandating winner-take-all. The manner for choosing electors is regulated by state law. In fact, two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not use winner-take-all. In those states, the winner of each congressional district gets one elector and the winner of the state as a whole gets an additional two. Any state that wanted to adopt this system need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

In his book Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner-Take-All Politics Steven Hill argues for Instant Runoff Voting. In this system, each voter would designate a first choice, a second choice, etc. After all the votes have been cast, everyone's first choice is counted. If some candidate has a majority, he or she is elected. If not, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is disqualified and his or her votes redistributed to the voter's second choice candidate. This process is repeated until some candidate has a majority. In 2000 under this system, voters could have designated Ralph Nader as their first choice and Al Gore as their second choice. When the first choice votes were counted and it was discovered, for example, that Nader came in last (not really, since there were even more minor candidates), his votes would then have been given to the second choice candidate. In effect, a voter could have said: "I want Ralph Nader but if I can't have him, I'll settle for Al Gore." With instant runoff voting, this is possible. This system is used in some municipal elections. Again, any state that chose to adopt it need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

The third objection to the electoral college is the so-called faithless elector problem. As mentioned above, electors are actual human beings, with all the properties that go along with that. In particular, when they meet in December in their respective state capitals, they sometimes do not vote for the candidate they are officially pledged to. In 1948, for example, Truman elector Preston Parks of Tennessee, voted for Strom Thurmond who was running on the pro-segregation Dixiecrat ticket. In 1960, Nixon elector Henry D. Irwin of Oklahoma voted for Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, then an ardent segregationist. In 2000, one of Gore's D.C.'s electors, Barbara Lett-Simmons, cast a blank ballot in protest of the District's lack of congressional representation. None of these faithless electors changed the outcome of their respective elections, but in a close election in the future, it might be possible for a candidate to bribe enough electors to swing the election. At the very least, state law could make voting the wrong way a felony with life in prison as the punishment.

If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state's electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all.

Even without any changes, the system does offer some flexibility. In New York State, for example, there is a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, and both are on the ballot at every election. The Liberal Party usually nominates the same person as the Democrats and the Conservative Party usually nominates the same person as the Republicans. As long as each party gets enough votes, it retains its status as a recognized party and gets on the ballot automatically at the next election. It has been suggested that if Ralph Nader were to choose the Kerry electors as his electors in each state he gets on the ballot, then people could express their support for him, and provide impetus to his movement, but a vote for Nader would (literally) be a vote for Kerry. This would no doubt encourage many people to vote for him knowing that such a vote would not help George Bush.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 10, 2004 07:40 PM

Lets just see, the life of a innocent child or the life of an innocent Iraq citizen. Well one is murder the other in an accident of war. Same value but different intent. See your questions are to easy.
Vote for Bush/Cheney 04 Thanks.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 11, 2004 02:49 AM

I personally favor adoption over abortion! The difference here is not only being a leader but interpeting the US Constitution. The white house wants to rewrite the constitution to suit Bush's own morality.

A persons right to choose is one of those!

It si the same right a person has to freedom of speech, choose what religion they believe.

You can not legislate morality period!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 11, 2004 10:40 AM

Kathy:

I agree with you that abortion is murder. Kerry says that he believes life begins at conception, so he must agree, too. I keep hearing people say that the fetus is not a human. What is it then, a stuffed animal? Even when I was just a child, I knew that, when a woman got pregnant, she was pregnant with a baby. Whether or not she was happy about the pregnancy, she still knew she was carrying a baby. A human baby. Now that I'm older, am I to understand that there is a possibility that a woman may give birth to something other than a human baby? (Maybe all those National Inquirer stories were true after all!)

Posted by: Genie D. at October 11, 2004 02:58 PM

The very day the Duelfer document was released, here was President Bush in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., declaring that he had to invade Iraq because �there was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks.�

That risk � with no bill of particulars behind it � is supposed to justify a war of choice that has taken more than 1,000 American lives, caused far more Iraqi casualties and shows no sign of coming to an end.

As for Cheney, the chief cheerleader for this war, his comment in the Tuesday night vice-presidential debate was, �What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do.�

This refusal to acknowledge error � this rejection of accountability � is more than personal vanity. It infects the entire approach of this administration.

The top civilian leaders of the Pentagon failed to provide the number of troops needed for success in Iraq � a point made repeatedly by the former Army chief of staff, by Sens. John McCain and Joe Biden, and now belatedly confirmed by the president�s handpicked Iraq administrator, Paul Bremer. Yet Bush and Cheney have done nothing but praise Don Rumsfeld and his team.

The intelligence services failed to pick up warning signs of the 9/11 attack or to convince the policy-makers that they might be misjudging the seriousness of Saddam as a military threat. But George Tenet was allowed to retire with full honors as director of the CIA, and one of his supposed congressional overseers, Porter Goss, who raised no alarms himself, has been named to succeed him.

The reality is that except for a few whistleblowers, a handful of independent, opinionated legislators and some few enterprising reporters, there is no accountability mechanism operating in one-party Washington.

If Bush and Cheney are re-elected, the Republicans are likely to maintain control of the House and Senate, with all the investigative and oversight powers that reside in the legislative branch. That is an inherently risky situation, particularly when the president and vice president are disinclined to question their own or their associates� judgment.

That is why voters are right to think this election is so important. WE ourselves are the ultimate � and only � enforcers of accountability.

VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS 2004

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 11, 2004 03:29 PM

JM,

Your post states:
"Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas. (It makes little sense from either an economic or a freshness standpoint to be shipping fruits and vegetables and/or finished food products halfway around the world rather than producing them locally.) One wouldn't expect, for example, every can and bottle of Coca-Cola sold anywhere in the world � whether it be Australia, China, or Portugal � to be produced by U.S. bottlers.)

As the H.J. Heinz Company notes, well over half its sales come from foreign markets, and it therefore operates overseas facilities to serve those markets:

That is exactly what I was talking about. She sold in 1995 meaning she made a fortune off of a company that has jobs overseas. I'm not saying it is wrong. It is hypocritical to chastise other companies for doing the same. That is my point. Thanks for proving it for me.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 11, 2004 05:11 PM

ShoemakerM:

I don't care what you say. War is evil. I never said that our soldiers should be called "evildoers". They are following their instructions. That is mandatory. I am refering to any war. If war is not evil, then what is it?

Posted by: JM at October 11, 2004 06:22 PM

Riccardo,

That was one priest who decided not to give communion to John Kerry. I am sure that there are others that feel the same way. But, there are also other priests that would not hesitate to give him communion. I agree that abortion is murder, but it is protected by our constitution. I don't have an answer for this problem other than people should really consider how immoral it really is before they decide to get one. Maybe that would lower abortion rates. It is a sad situation all around.

Posted by: JM at October 11, 2004 06:31 PM

Thanks Nicky! I saw your name on the Orlando Sentinel site. Get your friends to vote here!

Posted by: JM at October 11, 2004 07:00 PM

JM,

How about war against evil? War in itself is evil but man is sinful by nature. In the Old Testament God used groups of people to chastise other groups of people for being rebellious.

If you disagree with that premise then I will use a secular example. We went to war to stop Hitler from destroying Europe and Japan from taking over Asia. I am not being antagonistic, I am curious how do you feel about defending the innocent?

War should be a last resort. Unfortunately opinions vary on whether we used that option as a last resort this time. I know how you side with this issue and we can agree to disagree. My point is we have some common ground, everyone loses when there is war.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 11, 2004 07:22 PM

Abel, stop playing with words Pro-Choice is a nice way of saying Pro-Abortion. It's not a choice about what they want on their hamburger, it's about what they want to do with the baby growing in their womb. Pro-Choice is just a pretty way of saying a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy or have an abortion. If you are pro-choice, then you are defending the woman's right to choose to have an abortion. That means you are not at issue whit the termination with the life growing inside her. If you recognize the fetus as a human life then decide that a woman has the right to terminate that life, you are pro-abortion.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 11, 2004 08:51 PM

To All,
Kerry supports abortion rights, In addition, Kerry does not support parental notification and voted against the partial birth abortion ban. In 2002, Kerry was rated a perfect 100 by the NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Bush: Supports abortion rights only in cases of rape or incest or when a woman's life is endangered. Signed bill to ban a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion.

Kerry: Supports abortion rights and would only nominate Supreme Court justices who share that view.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/issues/campaign-2004-issues.htm

God Bless

Posted by: Christina at October 11, 2004 08:52 PM

JM,

Yes. War is evil. Thanks for the philosophy lesson.

Vote Nader in '04.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 11, 2004 09:27 PM

Abel you say Kerry is Pro Choice. Where in your definition is the fetuses right to be born. Thats the fundelmental argument against abortion.

Abort the Liberal not the Baby!!!

Posted by: Mike NY at October 11, 2004 09:44 PM

Kerry talked about the right of a girl to have an abortion without parental consent in the instances where a girl is raped by her own father.

The problem with this argument is that this is a criminal situation, where law enforcement should definitely become involved.

Kerry would rather this poor girl get an abortion and noone except for her has to know.

This is just asking for a girl to remain in an awful, ongoing situation.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 12, 2004 12:32 AM

Mike,

Pro-Choice only means that the federal government should never interfere into this privacy matter. The woman should always have the final word when it comes to her own body. Why do ignorant Hero Hating (HH) pro-Bushite Republicans insist on thinking that pro-Choice means pro-Abortion?

The fetus is still part of the woman's body before it's born and so the woman must be in command and be guided by her conscience, her doctor, her famly and perhaps her Priest. Contrary to what ignorant pro-Bushites think, Pro-Choice is not the same thing as pro-Abortion. I think most American are pro-Choice but few, if any, are pro-Abortion.

Most Americans simply don't want to give the federal government power to imprison women and their doctors whenever an abortion procedure is performed. We went through all this before and a lot of women, mostly the poor, suffered. Wealthy women could, of course, travel to other countries where it was legal to perform abortions. We don't want to go back to this, do we? We need to learn from history.

The privacy of the woman, her family, her doctor and perhaps her Priest should always be respected. The HH pro-Bushite Republicans and the goverment must never be allowed to interfere in the privacy of what people do in their homes and offices.

Tell me, why do you favor the government so much? Do you think the government is always right, or what? Liberals would never be for giving the government this kind of power.

Your POST follows:

Abel you say Kerry is Pro Choice. Where in your definition is the fetuses right to be born. Thats the fundelmental argument against abortion.
Abort the Liberal not the Baby!!!
Posted by: Mike NY at October 11, 2004 09:44 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 12, 2004 02:40 AM

ShoemakerM,

You sure have a lot of nerve trying to tell people for whom to vote. You must also be a Hero Hating (HH) pro-Bushite Republican. Don't you know that a vote for Ralph Nader is a wasted vote? JM and I are both going to vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket because your beloved George W. Bush is nothing better than a coward and a liar.

As a matter of fact, the HH pro-Bushites helped Ralph Nader get into the Presidential ballot by contributing tens of thousands of dollars to him. You vote for him if you want to but don't be expecting intelligent people to follow you blindly.

You say, "There is plenty of evil over in Iraq but it's not being perpetrated by us. Don't try to pin that on Bush and the USA." Unfortunately, a lot of the evil that's happening in Iraq is happening only because we are there.

We are killing a lot of innocent Iraqis and we must recognize that. We have to question why we're there. Wasn't it a mistake to invade Iraq? Who caused the invasion to happen? Wasn't it George W. Bush? Who allowed him to do it? Wasn't it us? Who are we? Aren't we the good old USA? Face it, the truth sometimes hurts.

For your information, George W. Bush and we, as American citizens, may be regarded as war crimminals for allowing him to invade Iraq illegally but our soldiers only followed his orders. Only high ranking officers who follow illegal orders may be regarded as war crimminals.

Examine this BLOG and you'll find POSTs in every Board that'll inform you regarding the failures of George W. Bush. The lies of the HH pro-Bushite Republicans won't change anything. Bush's term is almost over and if our candidate John Kerry keeps surging in the polls, it's over for George W. Bush too.

Your POST follows:

"JM, You wrote: "The war in Iraq is also a form of evil and that should be acknowledged."
If you believe this then you should vote for Ralph Nader. In addition, you had better be prepared to call our American GI's "evildoers". John Fonda Kerry had no problem doing that 30 years ago. I guess it's just another flip-flop that he's not calling our current soldiers "war-criminals".
There is plenty of evil over in Iraq but it's not being perpetrated by us. Don't try to pin that on Bush and the USA."
Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 10, 2004 07:32 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 12, 2004 03:25 AM

I wish you people would get off the abortion issue. If abortion is not legalized then women who insist on their rights will be forced to sneak and have an abortion in some dark basement with unsanitary tools, or wrap their newborn's in a blanket and toss them in the dumpster for several legitimate reasons, primarily because teenagers don't fully understand any other options, and many are afraid to tell their parents and teachers. That is happening right today under the Pastor Bush reign. The Reverend Bush, and his Republicans cult followers can't stop abortion! If the abortion right is legalized, health workers will have the opportunity to offer these young ladies alternatives, and keep them in good health.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 12, 2004 06:03 AM

Latest CNN Poll 10/10

Survey BUSH KERRY Margin Includes
Running-
End Date % % Bush Kerry mates?

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 10/10 48 50 2 Y

Posted by: d. jones at October 12, 2004 06:07 AM

Chris:

Your viewpoint on war is well-taken. It is my viewpoint. I just get tired of hearing people supporting the war in Iraq as if it was some kind of sporting event. War is something that should be a last resort. Concerning the war in Iraq, I just think that it should have had a better plan. Don't ask me what the plan would be, because I do not know. All I do know is that after Baghdad fell, there didn't seem to be a viable plan to maintain peace and now we see the effects of that lack of planning every day. I feel that George Bush did rush to war especially since the word is out that initiating a war in Iraq was one of his very first concerns when he took office. Now the American public has to pay for it! The Bush administration's rosey picture of what would happen after Saddam was overthrown was a sign of poor judgment in my book. It also showed a naivete on Middle East relations in general. The Middle East is an area with no easy answers. It's been that way for thousands of years. To expect a different outcome in Iraq was imprudent to say the least.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 10:10 AM

Chris:

The main point about the Heinz corporation is that large corporations set up businesses in other countries in order to be part of that countries market. From my post: Moreover, the Heinz Company's operations are not an example of the type of outsourcing that is currently a hot political issue (i.e., sending out work to offshore companies to provide services which a company might otherwise have employed its own staff to perform). Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas. (It makes little sense from either an economic or a freshness standpoint to be shipping fruits and vegetables and/or finished food products halfway around the world rather than producing them locally.) One wouldn't expect, for example, every can and bottle of Coca-Cola sold anywhere in the world � whether it be Australia, China, or Portugal � to be produced by U.S. bottlers.)

This is not an example of outsourcing. I do have a problem with outsourcing and I don't think that I am being hypocritical to state that there are companies that are sending jobs overseas just for the sake of saving tax dollars. That is true outsourcing. They are using foreign workers to do their business within the United States. That bothers me.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 10:16 AM

ShoemakerM:

The lesson about war is one of human decency more than one of philosophy. It is not a liberal idea to eschew war WHENEVER possible. The war on terror is not the type of war that I am referring to since it is an unconventional war. Terrorism needs to be stomped out. Wise decisions need to be made in order to do that. I don't think George Bush's decisions have made us much safer, if at all. His judgment is questionable and he has a lot of nerve questioning John Kerry's when Bush has shown his judgment is not the best in the world either. I think this is a form of deflection. Accuse someone else about the qualities that you actually possess.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 12:28 PM

D.,

Your last argument does not hold up on abortion. People have to sneak to murder, do drugs, rape, etc. and from a conservative standpoint abortion is a life issue. You will not change that. So to ask someone to "get off the abortion issue" is asking you to stop believing in your core values it is not realistic.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 12, 2004 03:16 PM

JM,

Your point is taken also. As a conservative I see liberals using any subject matter to try and discredit Bush, so I feel that some liberals are using the war as a means to get rid of Bush to further their own agenda. I don't beieve you or Abel fall into that category. You both seem passionate, however I still feel we did the right thing, based on what the entire world thought about WMD's and what we knew collectively about Saddam. We can agree to disagree.

As for Heinz I understand the difference and why you see it as being different, but the way I see it we should be able to do business so as to make a profit, within the ethical standards and I feel very strongly about ethics in business. So in my eyes I see the outsourcing of jobs as a better way to do business in the long run. I have worked as a call center manager for a major Fortune 100 company and the work ethic for the most part is just awful for those types of jobs. We are seeing that in India for example it is not as profitable to outsource because their are too many high paying jobs in India now and some of those companies don't like the high level of turnover. It is very much like that here in the states. I think we need to let this run it's course and competition will eventually bring the good jobs back home. Unfortunately in the short run it is hurting some. That is why retraining is crucial. My father was a computer operator on the AS400 for many years. That computer is being used less and less and then he was trained as a facilities person. I fell that is a viable option for someone who's job is phased out. It is painful on the front end but rewarding long term. I still understand why this turns people off.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 12, 2004 03:29 PM

Abel,

You make it sound like the Government is some evil, nasty entity just waiting to rob people of their rights. In America WE ARE the Government. The people in office are just supposed to be extensions of US the people.
We as the people must take a stand to protect the innocents in our society. There are none more innocent and helpless than the unborn! If we as the people do not protect them, then who will?
Should people who don't want their children be able to kill them? Should men who are tired of their wives just kill them and dump their bodies?
Medically speaking, a fetus is NOT a part of the womans body. It is connected to the woman, but it is not a part of her, like a limb or an organ.
Partial birth abortion is particularly barbaric. This is a full-term child who could LIVE who is murdered just prior to birth! It is killed by having a hole punched in the back of it's skull and having it's brains evacuated. Because it has not drawn it's first breath it is legal. Five minutes later, it would be murder if that same child died! This is what we as a nation are sanctioning! And we do it in the name of choice? If you and I are not going to protect the innocent's then who will? That only leaves The Almighty! There are many scriptures that refer to "Hands that shed innocent blood." Or do you not think that the unborn are innocent? Do the unborn not have ANY rights? Only those who are fortunate enough to have mothers that want them? Pro-choice and pro-abortion are synonymous terms. They mean the same thing. Just as pro-life, and anti-abortion describes the same stand!
Until the Democratic party begins to address some of these issues, for many of us, the Republican party is the only option.

Posted by: kathy at October 12, 2004 08:37 PM

JM,

You sound like John Kerry. You're saying a lot but I have no idea what you're actually talking about.

My point was that if you are against the Iraq war, there is an actual anti-Iraq war candidate. It's Ralph Nader, not John Kerry.

Ralph Nader was actually against the war from the start. Just like Howard Dean.

Kerry is a Monday-Morning Quarterback of the worst type. Vietnam, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq...

He's nothing but a grand criticizer.

If John Kerry was a real leader, then he would have been guiding public policy for the last 4 years rather than just sitting back and complaining about how it could have been done.

If he was such a visionary on National Security, then why did he not work with Bill Clinton to revamp the intelligence and home defense sectors? They had 8 years. Bush had 8 months.

If John Kerry has so many "world leader" friends, then why has he not accomplished anything in regards to Iraq?

So far the only connection that I've seen of John Kerry to the war in Iraq is that he voted for it and then voted against funding the very same military effort.

I know that I've never seen a picture of either John Kerry or John Edwards in Iraq, standing with US Soldiers or otherwise.

What exactly have John Kerry and John Edwards done for the effort in Iraq?

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 12, 2004 08:52 PM

Abel you wrote:

You sure have a lot of nerve trying to tell people for whom to vote. You must also be a Hero Hating (HH) pro-Bushite Republican

I thought as a liberal you were more tolerant? in your dreams maybe. What exactly do you call what you do? Not trying to tell people who to vote for?

And another thing - the HH Pro-BUshite line is really getting old. I have one for you: How about union loving delusional leftie A ULDL?

Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 12, 2004 10:21 PM

d.jones,
Did you know that Pastor Bush is keeping people in wheelchairs? If Kerry gets elected wheelchair bound people will walk. Edwards said so himself.

Posted by: Wayne at October 12, 2004 11:20 PM

ShoemakerM:

I never said I was against the war. I think war is a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. I have a BIG problem with the way this particular war was initiated and how it has been handled in general. President Bush accuses John Kerry of voting against supplying our troops with the necessary equipment that they need, yet Mr. Bush is the one who sent them to Iraq WITHOUT the equipment in the first place. That is just one example of what I consider to be a lack of good planning. He has jeopardized the lives of our soldiers. Additionally, by refusing to acknowledge that there were too few troops in Iraq, has also jeopardized their lives. That is poor judgment in my view.

Now as far as someone who criticizes, I just saw Bush again on television, and that is all he ever does. His stump speeches are full of mockery. In my opinion, it makes Bush look stupid because he really has nothing intelligent to say. He is looking for laughs. I am looking for an intelligent leader, not some half-wit clown.

Now, your question about Kerry and Iraq is not too smart. If he did try to work on that situation, you would be saying that he was circumventing the President and therefore, he was possibly committing treason. He can't win with that one.

I am tired of hearing people beat the "Kerry didn't want to fund Iraq" drum because it is being taken out of context. Also, if you remember, Mr. Bush showed up in Iraq on the sly and just for a few hours. It was a photo-op, sure and sweet. Maybe Bush should have toured the country to see the turmoil that he had initiated. Yes, Saddam was looking for a fight, but the turmoil did not exist and there were no American troops dying there until Bush attacked.

As far as what either John Kerry or John Edwards have done for Iraq, they have pointed out that the war is not the rosey picture that the Bush administration has tried to portray it. As Americans, it is our right to know what is going on there. If it wasn't for people like them, we wouldn't know half the **** that is going on.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 11:25 PM

Kathy,

Be very careful. What do you think this government is currently doing? They are trying to take away some of our personal freedoms and people don't even realize it. (ie. Patriot Act) This is a dangerous precedent.

I do find it sad that the single issue of abortion, which I admit is horrible, is the primary reason that some people will vote for Bush even though there are so many other issues that exist and should be considered.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 11:30 PM

Chris:

The key word in your last post is "ethical". I don't think it is ethical to ship jobs overseas. I will go so far as to say that I hope any American company that insists on doing this loses business and money instead of the other way around.

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 11:32 PM

JM,

You and I are looking at different definitions concerning the word ethical, not trying to split hairs here just trying to close the communication gap, make sure we are on the same page.

I am referring to definition 2 as 1 is too vague in the Random House College Dictionary.

Ethical-in accordance with the rules and standards for right conduct or practice.

Now you feel it is unethical and you have a right to feel that way, as I feel that some of the abuses by labor have been unethical, such as so-called "union days", leaving early, denying a person the right to support his/her family because they disagree, pressuring a school teacher to join the union when his values don't support their political agenda. Now I know it goes both ways. There have been unethical business practices for years. However, I feel labor and management have beaten each other up to a point where owners have found a way not to play ball and now labor has cried foul. I expect that. But that is not the end all.

I am self employed for just that reason. I got tired of the corporate politics and I wasn't in a union environment. We all have a right to retrain ourselves. The only difference between me and the next guy is I took a chance and by the grace of God so far I have supported my family. I realize that could change but I feel that if more people placed value on other things other than 2 new cars every four years and the biggest empty house on the block, and we all lived within our means, I believe we could all add some value to our economy. It is not easy but it takes hard work, determination and the will to want the freedom to make your own decisions and spend more time with your wife and children. Now I know that self employment is not for everyone, but if everyone lived within their means and demanded from their employer the respect they deserved, it would create a competitive environment where companies would fight to keep employees. We are actually coming to that point in some industries, i.e.: nursing, some teachers, math and science, construction etc.

Just offering a different perspective. You may not agree but there are an awful lot of people out there that think that way.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 13, 2004 12:12 AM

JM, Perhaps we just have different value systems. To me the protection of those that have no one else to speak for them takes precedence over any and all other issues. I have a job, I have food on my table, I can pay my bills. I do think that the abortion issue is huge. It is huge to me. I wonder how future generations will look back at us. Will they see us the same way we see the Nazi medical experiments? No one spoke up for them either. No one cared because they were the mentally retarded, the aged, the Jews, and after all if it furthered the cause of science... Humm, sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?
The issues you refer to re: Govt. I know what the Govt is now. I know what it's supposed to be. I know what the Patriot act is and what it does.
Do you really think John Kerry is going to repeal the Patriot Act and if he does and we have another terror attack, then what is he going to do? Wring his hands and call France and Germany to come and help?
If the terror attack is in your town, and your loved ones die, will you forgive him for not 'protecting them from a known threat?' Are you willing to sacrifice those you love to free the Guantonamo Bay captives, or stop the Govt from listening into suspected terrorists phone conversations? Sometimes I think you guys think that if John Kerry wins then the terrorists will just go away and leave us alone. They won't. They see tolerance as weakness, and they hate US, not George Bush, not John Kerry, but you and me and they want us dead, at least dead or converted. That's there idea of tolerance!

Posted by: kathy at October 13, 2004 12:46 AM

JM,

Are you saying that the only thing that Kerry and Edwards have accomplished is to point out that it is not a "rosey picture"?

That was my point exactly. No plan. Only criticism.

As for being afraid to act because it would circumvent the president, what is the point of being a leader if you are not going to lead?

I'm not looking for secret meetings, I'm just looking for anything resembling a plan from Kerry. I'd also like to see some support for the effort, rather than just hearing it called a "diversion".

What kind of a leader wants to take over and manage a "diversion"?

If he was on the ground in Iraq, is this how he would describe the effort to the troops?

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 13, 2004 12:59 AM

Democrats Oppose Plan to Air Anti-Kerry Film
By Liz Sidoti
The Associated Press

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_FILM?SITE=NYSTA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Monday 11 October 2004

Washington - The Democratic Party and 18 senators are objecting to a broadcasting company's plan to air on 62 TV stations a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home from Vietnam three decades ago.

Sinclair Broadcast Group has asked its television stations - many of them in competitive states in the presidential election - to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary as part of an hourlong program two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Based near Baltimore, the company owns or manages affiliates of major broadcast networks in several states, including Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Mark Hyman, a vice president of corporate relations for Sinclair who also is a conservative commentator for the company, said Monday the show would contain some or all of the 42-minute film as well as a panel discussion of some sort. He said final details had not been worked out.

The documentary, called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim that Kerry's testimony - filled with "lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam" on the part of U.S. troops - demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

The Democratic National Committee planned to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. Also, 18 Democratic senators sent a letter to the Federal Communication Commission asking that it investigate whether Sinclair's plan was an improper use of public airwaves.

However, Sinclair's Hyman said, "The documentary is just a part of a special news event that we're putting together. We've invited one person to be a guest. That's Senator John Kerry." The company posted a note on its Web site Monday afternoon urging people to call Kerry's headquarters to urge his participation.

Chad Clanton, a Kerry campaign spokesman, said, "Everything is on the table but it's hard to take an offer seriously from a group with such a fierce partisan agenda, a group that's clearly not interested in the truth."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the company was acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party rather than a legitimate news outlet.

"In this election cycle, they have put their money where their right-wing mouths are," he said. "Sinclair's owners aren't interested in news. They're interested in pro-Bush propaganda."

Campaign finance records show that the company's executives have donated thousands of dollars to Bush's campaign. In April, the company was in the news for refusing to run a "Nightline" show in which hundreds of names of American troops killed in Iraq were read by ABC anchor Ted Koppel.

Hyman called the allegations about the documentary "absolutely absurd."

"Would they suggest that our reporting a car bomb in Iraq is an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign? Would they suggest that our reporting on job losses is an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign?" he said. "It's the news. It is what it is. We're reporting the news."

Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former journalist who made the film, said Monday that he felt the media had not explored the period of Kerry's life after he returned from Vietnam, including when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee alleging atrocities in Vietnam.

"For 33 years, we've been saying that how Kerry portrayed us was utterly false. It was purgatory of the worst kind. It was slander," Sherwood said. "But no one wanted to talk about it. Everybody ran for cover."

Sherwood, based in Harrisburg, Pa., is a friend and longtime aide to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a fellow Vietnam veteran and former Pennsylvania governor. He said he and Ridge have not spoken since the film project began.

Sherwood said it took six weeks to make the film, and that Sinclair contacted him last month after it was completed. He said he was told last week of the company's plan to run it, and that the company was not compensating him for the film.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 13, 2004 02:26 AM

Posted by: JM at October 12, 2004 11:30 PM

Like the democrats are voting against Bush because they don't like him?
Or because of stem cell research?
Your side has plenty of voters voting on one issue, this is an individual decision and why we vote. Just because they are not voting for your guy makes them wrong?

Posted by: Wayne at October 13, 2004 08:04 AM

ShoemakerM:

Why support something that you don't believe in? The President thumbed his nose at the world community because he knew what was best. In the mean time, the cost of the war has escalated. Why can't YOU admit that their are problems, especially when they are so obvious? That is partisanship at its worst.

As far as a plan for Iraq, I don't know exactly what the Democratic team has planned. Knowing what we know about Iraq today, maybe another perspective to the problem is needed because it is obvious that Bush can't admit errors (and correct them) when they occur.

Posted by: JM at October 13, 2004 10:38 AM

Abel,

Why isn't there the same outcry against the broadcast of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Pay-per-view, which is accessible to more homes than Sinclair Broadcasting? While the program will be broadcast in Pennsylvania, it will appear on one television station in Pittsburgh and nobody else in the rest of the state will see it. It's not much different in the other states.

There isn't any reporting on whether or not the documentary is factual, just politically motivated. The Sinclair Broadcasting company has offered the Senator a chance to explain the charges, to present his side of the story follwing the documentary. That sounds like a fair opportunity but the campaign has not responded to the offer.

This is just another example for the Democrats believing that anything that speaks in favor of them or against Bush is Okay, but challenge Kerry and then it's unfair. I want an explanation from John Kerry on his activities in the Winter Soldier movements. I want John Kerry to release all his military and medical records but he is unwilling to offer an explanation or to sign those records. The last thing this country needs is a presidency tied up in legal battles and investigations again.

John Kerry's activities in the Winter Soldier organization raises certain questions, with special reagrds to his visits with ambassadors from North Vietnam. This action is clearly in violation of the Constitution and invalidates his ability to hold office. He owes America an explanation before anyone votes for him because he will have to swear to uphold the constitution in order to become President and it appears as though he might have violated the rule of law.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 01:26 PM

I took a couple day break from this cr**! I see nothing has changed on this blog though.

It is funny how we all keep arguing our own opinions and views back and forth. Nothing anyone says is going to change anyones mind on Kerry or Bush. The minds have been made up by everyone in this blog so why do we keep going back and forth.

I am voting for Kerry and many of you will do the same and many others will vote to keep Bush. That is just the way it is.

Liberal, conservative,pro life, pro choice, anti war pro war, optomist pessamist! Whatever just vote on November 2 and let your voice be counted.

I am willing to accept whom ever wins and move this country forward one way or the other.

I am not selling out it is time that everyone just respect each other for ther own opinions whether we agree with the other ones or not!

Vote!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 13, 2004 02:22 PM

Wayne,
You are about to lose your opportunity to post on this blog if you continue to use the language that you used in your last comment. If you don't believe me, try it again, jerk.

Posted by: JM at October 13, 2004 03:04 PM

Wayne,

The first time I laughed today was your response to JM. but you guys aren't getting anywhere. You guys keep hurling insults back and forth and although it is comical I don't know that it makes much sense. I finally had jm all calmed down and their you go inciting the riot again. Well good luck getting through.

JM,

Some people think an innocent baby is worth fighting for. Try to understand. People feel very passionate about this issue on our side too. I do, however I also believe in the Republican ideology.

JM,

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 13, 2004 05:51 PM

Amen Louis.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 13, 2004 06:15 PM

JM,
I am not responsible for what makes it on this blog. I simply type my feelings and someone goes over it and posts it. Maybe they feel the same way? Oh well, can't please everyone can you?

Does anyone else here feel the same way?

And didn't JM just use foul language as well?

JM,
I am not scared.

Posted by: Wayne at October 13, 2004 06:45 PM

Louis,
I agree fully and I will respect everyone here when it is shown to me as well. You have my respect and my best wishes. I still hope that Bush wins but I can respect your vote as well.

I too will accept whoever wins next month. The name calling did not start with me, but I am willing to have it start to stop with me.

Thank you Louis.

Posted by: Wayne at October 13, 2004 06:48 PM

Kerry:I'm going to close the loopholes that actually encourage companies to go overseas. The president wants to keep them open. I think I'm right. I think he's wrong.
Warren Buffett agreed to serve on John Kerrys economic advisory team. Warren Buffett has also criticized President Bush�s tax cuts as favoring the wealthy. However what you do not know is that Kerrys tax plan includes taxing big corporations that avoid paying taxes that set up offshore companies in countries like the Cayman Island or Burmuda are the same companies that Warren Buffett invests and own stock in. I should know I work or such a company and Buffett owns a good chunk of it. Do you really think Warren Buffett will advise Kerry to tax companies that Warren Buffett owns.
Basically when it comes down to it, the wealthy expecially the upper 2% always finds loopholes in the tax laws. Just look at how much taxes the Ketchup Queen and Golden Boy paid. Please don�t be fooled that Kerrys is going to close these loopholes. In the end the middle class has unfortunately has always paid the burden of taxes. Unless the whole Income Tax system is completely overhauled, of which Kerry has not addressed and that Bush has,there will always be loopholes. The people that Kerry wants to tax, the people with incomes of 200,000+ are the heart and soul of small business. I know a client of mine that started his business about 40 years ago busting his ass and investing every dime he made back into his business. Today he employees about 15 people and also makes over 200,000 a year. If Kerry gets elected I could almost guarantee that he is going to lay people off if he gets a tax increase. Has Kerry figured out how many other businesses will lay people off to support his tax increase.

Posted by: Mike NY at October 13, 2004 09:30 PM

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium Increase - the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.
I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 10:13 PM

Chris, OH,
Your right about the insults here. I got frustrated and said something I should not have.

Posted by: Wayne at October 13, 2004 10:47 PM

Wayne:

You might not be scared, but you are obviously pretty stupid.

Posted by: JM at October 13, 2004 11:24 PM

President won the 3rd debate hands down. Vote for the leader Bush/Cheney in November. Thanks.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 13, 2004 11:25 PM

I feel that John Kerry really cares about me, an average American. I am not asking for any handouts. I am asking for a President that doesn't foresake the average person. We are the majority and we deserve to be represented in a positive way.

For the third debate in a row, Senator Kerry was so much more articulate than Mr. Bush. One-liners and smart alecky responses don't impress most people. That may impress Bush supporters, but I find it immature.

I was impressed by Senator Kerry's closing statement about bringing people together. I know that if he is elected, the Republicans will do to him what they did to Mr. Clinton. I hope it backfires. I am really getting a good feeling about this election because I believe that despite the closeness in the current polls, I think John Kerry just cemented his election victory by doing so well in the debates. Bye, George. Good luck with your life back in Crawford, Texas. You belong there. The people in Texas miss you.

Vote Kerry!

Posted by: JM at October 13, 2004 11:32 PM

JM,

Why should Kerry support something that he does not believe in? I don't know, but I do know that he voted for the war in the first place. He is on record numerous times as stating that he thought Saddam Hussein had WM/D's and that the Iraqi regime was a "grave threat". The claim that Bush tricked him is wearing thin.

Is Kerry going to go from "grand diversion" to "win the war in Iraq" the moment he's elected, God forbid? If he does not support the effort in Iraq, then he should tell us.

You seem to have spoken for him and said that he does not support the effort. If that's the case, then Kerry too should vote for Ralph Nader or one of the other anti-war candidates.

It's evident from your answer that you don't know what his plan is, either. Surely if Kerry had articulated any sort of real plan, we would all know what it is by now and would be either for it or against it.

His only real plan seems to be to criticize and play politics until the election. Meanwhile, for everyone else, life goes on.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 14, 2004 12:11 AM

Did anyone catch w's solution for the flu shot shortage? If you're not sick don't get a flu shot. All because his administration put all their eggs in one basket. Genius. I bet next he solves world hunger with the same philosophy: if you're not hungry, don't eat. Someone give the man the Nobel prize.

Posted by: Brian at October 14, 2004 12:22 AM

Your side has plenty of voters voting on one issue, this is an individual decision and why we vote. Just because they are not voting for your guy makes them wrong? Your an ass hole.

Posted by: Wayne at October 13, 2004 08:04 AM

Wayne,

I am suprised at you! Don't worry people I will take care of Wayne!

(slap)Wayne... djones slaps Wayne to the unemployment line with GW JR! LOL

The Senator has already won!

President John F. Kerry Yea!

Posted by: d. jones at October 14, 2004 12:41 AM

Abortion is Murder!
War is war!
The Left is destroying this nation.
And they want to allow the world to decide our laws (i.e the world court)
I believe that they are traitors to our founding fathers and to the People of the UNITED STATES!

Posted by: john at October 14, 2004 12:54 AM

YOU KNOW!! I am sick and tired of the liberal left saying that it is a womans right to decide on a abortion (COLD BLOODED MURDER!!) by that stupid statement you could say...I have a six year old little girl and it is my right to kill her under my constitional rights!
where do YOU draw the line!
oh the winning sissies will say it just a blob of cells, or a unknowing, unfeeling, fetus
believe me I have seen a almost full term CHILD killed by stabbing it in the back of the head with a pair of sissors. and see the baby flinch just before it died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS COLD BLOODED MURDER!
now tell me you can call that someones right!
rationalize that!
NARAL IS EVIL PERIOD!

Posted by: john at October 14, 2004 01:16 AM

and another thing to that idiot who said whats the diffrence between abortion and the war in iraq? humm let me see.........................less than 1500 have died in iraq (hello this war you idiot!) over 10,000 YES! 10,000! babies are slaughtered each year!
you dont have a leg to stand so
SHUT UP!

Posted by: john at October 14, 2004 01:23 AM

I just finished watching the third debate between John Kerry and George Bush and I must admit that George Bush did an acceptable job in the debate but, unfortunately for him, John Kerry did an excellent job and I have to declare John Kerry the winner one more time.

I am aware that all the Hero Hating pro-Bushite Republican liars will be claiming that their man, George W. Bush won and, to be fair, George W. Bush did do as well as he did in the second debate but that certainly wasn't good enough. To repeat, it wasn't as one sided as the first Kerry/Bush debate either but I have to declare that John Kerry was, nevertheless, the winner one more time.

George W. Bush sounded pretty good at giving the TALK and it's a shame that he could not talk more convincingly about the WALK part and how it could come about but that's an old story. I really believe that John Kerry will now go on to win this election although I'm still very aware that some Americans will probably be fooled by all the lies that the Hero Hating pro-Bushite Republican liars will be spreading.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 14, 2004 02:55 AM

Mike:

You are the one that has been fooled.

Posted by: JM at October 14, 2004 09:55 AM

Chris:

I find it strange that you would laugh at a post by Wayne. His posts have mostly been very lame and childish. Now I question what you are all about because it appears you do speak from both sides of your mouth. You are a good example of a "Christian", aren't you?

Posted by: J at October 14, 2004 09:58 AM

Wayne:

I haven't used profanity in any of my posts so stop trying to make yourself feel better at my expense. I can guess where the other post about "just men" came from and I am going to pursue that one. ;)

Posted by: JM at October 14, 2004 10:01 AM

Come on people we are all still Americans and If Bush or Kerry wins this country has alot of important issues to face and we must face them as a Nation united not divided!

Lets stop the personal attacks on each other and look at the big picture. Someone will lose and and someone will win this November. Afterward we need to be united and move forward against Osoma and terrorists alike, we must move the economy and the social issues.

Personal insults are counter productive and accomplish nothing positive at all but bread hatred for each others and our own opinions. I posted a comment yesterday asking for civilty by everyone that posts in this blog because whom ever wins we must support that person as a Nation United. I am willing to to support which ever person wins even though I am supporting Kerry now and will vote for him I will support Bush if he wins and I hope it will be the other way around also for Bush supporters if Kerry wins. They are both worthy of leading this country and the debates have proven that to me. That is my opinion!

Vote November 2, and be heard and who ever wins lets all fall behind that person.

GOD Bless everyone Democrat and Republican, Independant alike.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 14, 2004 11:31 AM

How low will the Democrats stoop to try and win the election? Well apparently they are ready to go pretty low. Check out this article:

Anti-Bush Political Flyer Draws Wrath of Special Olympics
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 14, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Leaders of the Special Olympics say they are "astounded and appalled" by an anti-Bush political flyer being distributed in Tennessee.
It shows the head of President Bush superimposed on the body of a Special Olympics athlete; and it reads, "Even if you win, you're still retarded."
"We see this communication as an egregious, gratuitous insult to our almost 2 million athletes in over 150 countries around the world and a stunning affront to the more than 200 million people in the world who have intellectual disabilities," said Timothy Shriver, Special Olympics chairman and CEO in a statement.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 14, 2004 11:58 AM

RESPECT is the real issue here! We ALL need to respect each others views and Ideals. Even if you dont agree we all need to have respect for each other and find common ground. That is what a democracy is. We dont have agree but we need to repect each other and views.

Please everyone keep that in mind. I have been guilty of allowing my own personal views and ideals get in the way of repecting another person and his own opinion and views. I am not going to get involved any further disrespecting someone else because I only disagree with their opinion.

Vote and be heard and lets get this division behind us. Tuesday November 2 can not come quick enough so we can start putting this all behind us.

Kerry and Bush both love this country as much as we all do. Regardless of who wins and I have my own choice of who I want to be that winner, this country will be stronger regardless of who that person is because of the discusion and involvment by the people in our country this year.

We all need to start respecting each other first and foremost, myself included!

Remember: A Nation divided will surely fall!

Lets all rember the Pledge of Allegence:

I pledge allegence to the FLAG of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS!

ONE NATION UNDER GOD!

INDIVISIBLE!

WITH LIBERTY!

and JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Nothing in the pledge says divided!

REPECT FOLKS! Respect for your fellow man and your country. People will always disagree and there is a profound difference between that a disrespect for one another.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 14, 2004 11:58 AM

Jesse Jackson confirms that John Kerry wants bigger Federal government and less state rights. Last night he said that George Bush is pushing the "ideology of the Confederacy". When asked if he thought Kerry would support his comparison of the Bush administration to the Confederacy, Jackson responded, "This is my language. Kerry supports the Union and Bush supports states' rights."
Maybe Jesse Jackson should go back and reread the constitution and the design of the government of the United States. The Federal Government is not supposed to interfere in State's Rights unless it posses a threat on the security of the Union.
It's seems the Kerry Campaign have nothing left except intimidation and scare tactics in their attempt to scare voters to vote for them. It's all gloom and doom. No constructive vision of the future. In Kerry's attack on the administration, he also attacks all the Senators and Congressman now serving, good republicans and democrats who have worked to help rebuild America after a recession and the attacks of 9/11. It all failed say Kerry over and over again. Education is a disastor, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The economy is horrible, ignoring the job loss as a result of the recession and attacks and the job growth over the last 13 months. He throws out figures that he can't keep straith. Has the average job rate dropped by 13,000 dollars or 9,000 dollars, he quoted both last night. But none of that will matter to his supporters. Greenspan praises the tax cuts by the President, Kerry says Greenspan is wrong. In kerry's mind, he has to be wrong because how else can he claim the things he does about the economy. To Kerry everybody is wrong who writes about economic recovery, a growing economy and job numbers. To kerry everbody is wrong who says we are going to win in Iraq following this administration. Even the people he is quoting from like Bremer and Franks who support the President must also be wrong, so why is he quoting them.
Both Edwards and Kerry have used Dick Cheney's daughter as a political tool as if their role in their vision of the New America is to out as many gays and lesbians as they can and then went so far as to call Mary Cheney "Fair Game" for their attacks. Republican headquarters are being focused as targets by labor groups for demonstartions which have resulted in violence. Intimidation, gloom and doom that's what kerry is offering us. Kerry thumbs his nose at the coalition that supports us in the war, calling them the bribed and co-erced and then he thinks he's going to get their help in winning the war in Iraq. Kerry insults Allawi, again hindering the US effectiveness on winning the war on Terror.

In all Kerry, by attacking Bush policies on education, attacks the Educators and Senators who came together to help develop the education policies. A bi-partican group who is now all wrong and only Kerry's secret plans will work. We also need the co-operation of the money sectors for economic growth and stimulation, but again Kerry attacks them. This guy is just bad news for America.

In still more attacks Kerry claimed last night that the President policies behind prescription drug companies was a free pass and a fat check worth over a billion dollars. Actually, the report Kerry cited stated that actually, if the Presidents policies are effected the drug companies would actually stand to lose revenue. He doesn't care about the truth, he only cares about winning. He's never had the best interest of this country in his heart, only John Kerry interests matter to him.

One final note Senator Kerry, when you brought up your mother last night and quoted her as saying "integrity, integrity, integrity!' that's one word....not three. He can't even tell the truth about your mother.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 14, 2004 12:24 PM

JM,

Please don't take one sentence of my post out of context. It accomplished the goal. The fact that I laughed does not mean I thought it was right. I would venture that if you were to follow me around all day you might find that I do and say things that are not "Christian like". Does that make my relationship with Christ any less? I find it comical that you both have completely lost your focus. You are no longer debating the issues and for that matter now you sucked me into it.

Besides I am amused at the difference in your response and his. He humbled himself whereas you went on the attack. This is my whole point. If be more apt to give each other the benefit of the doubt (with regards to motives) and and try harder to be nice this would be a much nicer world to live in. But if you notice (and I am just as guilty sometimes) we are quick to accuse and careless wiht regards to offending others. I've been called alot of things on this site. I don't take it personally because you all are seeing only one side of me. Not a true reflection of how I operate daily, but I have to admit it is pretty close. We have all antagoized on this site, we have all lost our tempers, hopefully we can all laugh as well. If not that is sad.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 14, 2004 01:32 PM

Abel,

I will bypass the rhetoric and go right to the meat. Sadly it is your camp that is being fooled. John Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. The liberals will give him a wink and a nod to say what it will take to get elected.

I know where Bush stands on defense, on abortion, on marriage etc. Sadly you have too many people that do not know where Kerry stands and will still vote the Democratic ticket. Voting irregularities are popping up all over Ohio already. Franklin County has registered more people than live there. Last go around there were precincts that did not report 1 Bush vote.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 14, 2004 01:43 PM

SHUT UP!

Posted by: john at October 14, 2004 01:23 AM

John you should take an anger management class. Let me ask you a question. If God asked you to murder your daughter, would you do it? My point being to all is that Abortion and Homosexuality are issues for God to decide and judge not the President of the U.S. Abortion and Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc, can't be stopped by reading a passage in the bible and telling Reverend Bush to amend the constitution, homosexuality, bisexual, etc exists in the military and prisons for years (I've heard many stories), they just don't talk about it. Former President Clinton knew of this and suggested the don't ask don't tell policy for the military.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 14, 2004 03:41 PM

JM,
Good luck in your pursuit, as far as me being stupid, every Kerry supporter here has called Bush supporters stupid or dumb as long as I have been visiting this site.

I don't care what you think, Bush wins in Nov.

Posted by: Wayne at October 14, 2004 04:52 PM

JM your response was:
You are the one that has been fooled

JM that was the biggest cop out of a response if I ever heard one.

Please explain a more detailed argument.

Posted by: Mike NY at October 14, 2004 08:24 PM

I'm sure the Freedom-hating pro-Kerry-ites will say their man, John F. Kerry, won because they know a good debator can take both sides of an argument and since he doesn't have an original thought or belief he can debate on any issue.

That's not what we want for a President. I'm voting Libertarian this time. I know the Democrats are trying to take Nader off the ballot, but I hope they leave the Libertarian Candidate alone.

That reminds me... Why are Democrats so against freedom of speech? And who was it telling us about the Communists running the Democratic Party? Now it makes since.

Whoops, I guess I answered my own question.

Posted by: Jay at October 14, 2004 08:40 PM

Jim Rodkey:

I agree that the special olympics scenario is outrageous. Don't blame it on Democrats in general, but on the individual or individuals that actually did it. Obviously, they are clueless.

Posted by: JM at October 14, 2004 09:55 PM

JM,
Why when a democrat says something awful like that it is just an individual and when it's a republican the whole party is hate filled liars? The last republican I heard the left bashing was Zell Miller, a democrat!

Why can't we ever be consistant with the way we treat everyone?

I know I am stupid and I am going to regret ever talking to you, right? I am going to be in big trouble or something like that, and don't forget the liar part while your at it.

Posted by: Wayne at October 14, 2004 11:40 PM

I don't think a vote out of hate is appropriate. A vote is a serious thing note to be taken lightly. I see you democrats going for hate and not substance. Listen to what was said and not who it was coming from and base your decision on that.
Now for you who do not grasp the reason behind the marriage amendment. It was forced upon him by a judical branch that decided to be legislative. If you don't understand the way goverment works go back to school. Then you will get that it is not about judging its about checks and balnces.

Posted by: jeffery at October 15, 2004 12:12 AM

I spoke to a couple of GOP consultants at lunch today. It looks like they're giving up on PA, Washington State, Oregon, and possibly New Hampshire. They're scaling back in Colorado as well because no matter what the outcome, Kerry will pick up at least 4 more electoral votes from there, possibly five. They also told me that the Senate candidates in a couple of states are now backing away from Bush. They're disappointed and their poll numbers are scaring them. It's so bad that they're looking at having to advertise in Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas - places they should have wrapped up a long time ago. In fact, Kerry's leading in Arkansas with "you know who" on his way there. Bush also lost his lead in Wisconsin. It looks like it will be tough saling for the Bushies.

Posted by: Paul at October 15, 2004 01:00 AM

Good news for the United States. The UN Security Council is about to rotate members and Germany is out and Socialist Spain is out.

In comes 2 solid allies, Japan and Denmark.

Check out the (brief) article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=858

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 15, 2004 01:17 AM

Here's an interesting article about some of the things Bush could not say during the debates, but are worth saying:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7239

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 15, 2004 01:18 AM

Here's an article by the guy who just won the Nobel Prize in economics. This means that the leading economists of the world think he has the best grasp on economic theory this year:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041011/pl_afp/nobel_economics_us_taxes_041011212152

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 15, 2004 01:19 AM

Brian, have you considered that this is exactly why we need to be cautious before we start IMPORTING DRUGS and why the President wants to make sure the drugs coming in ARE SAFE. Perhaps you'd rather have the President release the contaminated drugs to the market. Medical Malpractice suits have driven US drug manufacturers to slow down production of the Flu Vacinations because people get the shots and still get sick then they want to sue the doctors and the Drug Manufacturers.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 15, 2004 03:02 AM

d jones,
You said, My point being to all is that Abortion and Homosexuality are issues for God to decide and judge

God's already judged these issues an decided on them. Romans 1:17-25 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

God's word says, Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

God never changes his mind.

You said, Abortion and Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc, can't be stopped by reading a passage in the bible and telling Reverend Bush to amend the constitution, homosexuality, bisexual, etc exists in the military and prisons for years (I've heard many stories), they just don't talk about it. Former President Clinton knew of this and suggested the don't ask don't tell policy for the military.

No it can't be stopped but as christians we have to stand up for God's word.

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity

Daniel 9:14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

But if our country will turn from evil the lord will help us.

2 Chronicles 7;14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

So the President Bush has every right to stand up for God word and this country.

God's word says, John 7:34 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

God's word says, 1 Peter 3;12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

your post,
John you should take an anger management class. Let me ask you a question. If God asked you to murder your daughter, would you do it? My point being to all is that Abortion and Homosexuality are issues for God to decide and judge not the President of the U.S. Abortion and Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc, can't be stopped by reading a passage in the bible and telling Reverend Bush to amend the constitution, homosexuality, bisexual, etc exists in the military and prisons for years (I've heard many stories), they just don't talk about it. Former President Clinton knew of this and suggested the don't ask don't tell policy for the military.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: Christina at October 15, 2004 07:09 AM

What I have been saying all along is that the word liberal is just a label that Republicans try to pin a someone who disagrees with them. I believe that its effect is not as potent as it once was. Although I am more moderate than liberal or conservative, there are pieces of each that I agree with. I would never be offended if I was called a liberal because more than likely, anyone calling me a liberal would be using the word to try to denigrate my character. My actions and good character speak louder than any word that someone else may try to pin on me.

From a Businessweek article:

Tarring Kerry as a Liberal May Not Stick

Fri Oct 15, 8:10 AM ET Business - BusinessWeek Online

By Richard S. Dunham

Back in 1984, I watched in amazement at a Walter Mondale campaign event in the then-dilapidated South Beach section of Miami Beach. With hundreds of octogenarians cheering, the venerable Claude Pepper gave the same stem-winding, New Deal-vintage "Happy Days Are Here Again" speech that he had been delivering for a half-century.
While interesting as a historical flashback for a young political reporter, I can also remember that this event was so 1930s. It was Old News. The liberal Democrats who were speaking -- and applauding -- were a political anachronism. And to younger voters listening in, the Democratic Party and its nominee seemed desperately out of touch with the times.

Later that year, voters decided that it was "Morning in America," and they reelected Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) in a landslide. Mondale lost Florida and every other state, save his own, Minnesota.

"RIGHT ON THE FAR LEFT." This Pepper moment came back to me as I listen to George Bush (news - web sites) over and over again describe John Kerry (news - web sites) as a liberal. As I've traveled around the country in recent weeks, I've heard Republican radio ads and watched TV commercials blasting Kerry as an out-of-touch, endanger-your-family, soft-on-security liberal.

In the second Presidential debate on Oct. 8 in St. Louis, Bush repeated the claim that Kerry (he once fumbled and called him Kennedy) was named by the respected National Journal as the No. 1 most liberal lawmaker in the Senate. And during the final Presidential debate on Oct. 13, Bush went on an anti-liberal riff. "There's a mainstream in American politics, and you sit right on the far left bank," Bush said. "Your record is such that Ted Kennedy, your colleague, is the conservative senator from Massachusetts."

As I listen to this chorus of "liberal, liberal, liberal," I'm wondering: Is "L" still the scarlet letter of American politics? Or are Bush and the Republicans as out of touch with mainstream America now as were Claude Pepper and his aging New Dealers in the '80s?

HOLLOW RING? To a lot of voters who have come of age since Reagan's heyday, the L word seems so, well, 1980s. Anybody who'll vote against Kerry because they're scared that he's a liberal already would have decided to vote against him for a host of more substantive reasons.

The polls bear this out. Voters believe Kerry is more liberal than they are -- but that's not a disqualifying factor. An Oct. 9-10 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that by 47% to 45%, voters believe Bush shares their values better than Kerry. But by 49% to 42%, they believe Kerry cares more about people like them.

Bush political guru Karl Rove and his team are convinced that the "liberal, liberal, liberal" chant eventually will kill Kerry with blue-collar voters in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and West Virginia. But while it may still have resonance in the rural South -- much like Pepper's rhetoric scored with Miami retirees -- I suspect it may ring hollow in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Orlando, and Columbus.

Voters will decide on Nov. 2 whether the L word is yesterday's news.

Posted by: JM at October 15, 2004 02:23 PM

Paul,

I would not take those two opinions at face value. All of the polls are within striking distance for either candidate. But if your that confident, you can take the day off Tuesday, November 2. Stay home relax and watch tv. You have earned it.:)

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 15, 2004 05:24 PM

Voters are not supporting Kerry because he is liberal. They support him because he is misleading. He tries to come off as a moderate but his voting record proves otherwise. Voted against the first Iraqi War. I rest my case.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 15, 2004 05:44 PM

Well the debates are at last over and it appears without doubt that President Bush was the overall winner. Just as they did four years ago, the networks instant polls show victory for the Democrat, but when given time to react and think, more expansive surveys show that by double digit margins, the President is the stronger leader, stands by his positions, is more trustworthy and can better handle Iraq and the War on Terror. Kerry's strong stylistic performance in a debate he lost on substance on 9/30 served to rally his base and cause the polls to tighten some, but he has been unable to get ahead and after John Edwards was humiliated by Dick Cheney, Kerry was narrowly beaten by Bush in debate 2, and Kerry suffering a KO loss in debate 3, we are seeing Bush's lead slowly widening. Zogby (liberal), Rasmussen (conservative) and even CBS all show that after the debates the President is moving inexorably ahead. In the end, what will we remember of these debates years from now? Kerry's horrific "Mary Cheney" and "global test" gaffes, incomprehensible answers on nearly every subject and a straight talking president who believes firmly in who he is, and where he wants to lead.

Even more terrifying to Democrats has to be their erosion in many key Senate races. Races are trending towards GOP candidates (deficits closing or leads widening) in NC, SC, GA, FL, LA, OK, CO, SD, and AK. Democrats will pick up the GOP seat in IL, but that would create a 56-43-1 GOP Senate next year unless the Democrats can stop the bleeding. But with Kerry today stating that Bush will bring back the draft (scare tactic), it appears he is more than willing now to help Bush finish him and his party off once and for all.

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at October 15, 2004 07:38 PM

Wayne: You know, when you present yourself the way you did in the last post to me, I have no problem with you. But... when you act childish and call me d.jones and continue to harp on it, I have no use for you. You probably are not a bad guy, but if you were to call me a "*hole" in person, you might have gotten something that you would not have wanted!
It bothers me that the Republican supporters act like they are special in God's eyes. They act like they can't do anything wrong. The people who have supported Kerry on this site have been accused of being foulmouthed, etc., but then I read your post and that is exactly how you presented yourself. That is what made me mad! No one said anything about that except me. Democrats are always accused of being something less than Republicans. We are no more or no less than Republicans. We love our country as much as anybody. We are just as American as anybody. We fight and die in wars for America. Republicans need to back off of their superiority complex.

By the way, I am not trying to get you in trouble. I just want you to watch your language. I have a thicker skin than you may believe. I just don't normally go around calling people the name that you chose to call me. As far as being stupid, don't take a comment like that personally. I don't know you so how can I know if you are truly stupid or not? Just give me a break with the comments about d.jones. I may be voting for Kerry, but I assure you that I do not know d.jones. We are two different people. I am in the northeast. He (or she) is either in Texas or Tennessee.

Posted by: JM at October 15, 2004 10:12 PM

Posted by: JM at October 15, 2004 02:23 PM

What would you consider yourself? And don't use the A word. LOL Just kidding.

Posted by: Wayne at October 15, 2004 11:13 PM

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at October 15, 2004 07:38 PM

Well the debates are at last over and it appears without doubt that President Bush was the overall winner.

HAHAHA! LOL! LOL!

You people are so sick! Have you check the debate polls for CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC? They all clearly show Kerry won each debate in the instant polls after each debate, and all follow up polls. You even refused to admit Kerry creamed GW JR in the first debate. I can only laugh and pray for you people. You are going to lose, no doubt in my mind at this time.

d jones,
You said, My point being to all is that Abortion and Homosexuality are issues for God to decide and judge

God's already judged these issues an decided on them. Romans 1:17-25 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Posted by: Christina at October 15, 2004 07:09 AM

Christina, please don't quote Bible passages to me. I have a ordained minister to do that. I don't need to hear it from you, nor the reverend Bush. You simply are not qualified. If you feel so strongly about following the Bible to the letter, then move out of your home, give it to a poor person, give all your clothes and personal belongings away to a poor person and walk around naked, Adam and Eve were naked until they sinned. Give you car or bus pass away to someone poor. Practice what you preach. You and Reverend Bush along with his cult followers, use the Bible as a tool to pick parts and pieces that agree with your own personal predjudices and tell everyone they are going to hell. If God has made his decisions as you state, then let his ordained ministers interpret this to his religious congregation, not a Dummy (GW JR), or his cult followers. You people quoting the Bible or no better than David Karesh in Waco, TX. Sane people are not falling for that trick. Your faith is a personal issue. A President should run as an American Citizen, not based on his religious affiliation, as John F. Kennedy stated. You Republican label callers yell about gay people, yet it's ok for them to fight in your wars, care for your wounded, care for the American elderly who can no longer fully care for themselves. It's ok that Gay people work in hospitals to care for anyone sick, or daycare centers to care for your children while most Adults are at work trying to make a living. I have never seen so much predjudice and hatred in my life, and I am over 40 years old. This has to come to a complete halt or we wont be able to move forward as a great nation, but will become completely obsolete in the world, stuck back in the colonial days. i.e. the 1600's. We will become so weak and divided that any third world Country wouldn't have to do much to take over American and establish a Dictatorship, like Bush is trying to do. Then what would happen to your religion and Bible. You won't have the right to practice any religion at all. It's time to wake up people!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 16, 2004 08:35 AM

Survey USA ran polls in 14 states and 21 cities to see who won the third debate. Kerry won in NY, NJ, ME, CA, OR,WA, IL, AR, PA, and CO. Bush won in TX, KY, and OK. Florida, as usual, was a tie.

I personally called the local Texas news station and talked real ugly to the station manager about the biased political analyst they chose to report on the third debate. If four nation wide polls said Kerry won, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, it was clear to me that this analyst wasn't watching the same debate, I watched. I threatened to publically boycott the station if that biased political analyst ever showed his face on Texas TV again. I was told my comments would be distributed throughout the station personnel. I ended the call with a thank you, and haven't seen that idiot reporting political news again.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 16, 2004 08:55 AM

In answer to Michael P. Borgia:

Its time for Bush to get worried
By Frank Luntz

October 15, 2004

The big story of the US presidential election up to Thursday was how few undecided voters there were. Now the final presidential debate is over, these voters have essentially made up their minds - and it is George W.Bush who should be worried. If John Kerry is elected the 44th president, it will be because of a single night in Miami, Florida, when he came to debate and Mr. Bush came to - well, no one is quite sure. The double-digit lead that Gallup polls, long considered an authority for presidential polling, gave Mr. Bush after the Republican convention was fully erased by that fateful 90-minute confrontation.

Step by step, debate-by-debate, John Kerry has addressed and removed many remaining doubts among uncommitted voters. My own polling research after each debate suggests a rather bleak outlook for the Bush candidacy: many who still claim to be �undecided� are in fact leaning to Mr. Kerry and are about ready to commit.

Can Mr. Bush turn the tide in just 18 days? Absolutely, but his candidacy must address voters who still harbour economic and national security concerns. But that requires a fundamental shift in the president�s strategy and message. Asserting that the economy is strong and Iraq a success is simply not credible to the majority of Americans or to the stubborn 5 per cent who remain uncommitted.

The first thing Mr Bush should remember is to forget about using statistics to prove the economy is on the right track. Uncommitted voters, who tend to fall below the US average in education and income, just do not buy it. They feel squeezed by reduced employee benefits and higher prices. The president must articulate their frustration and, in the words of Bill Clinton, �feel their pain�. But that is not enough. Mr. Bush has explicitly to outline his plan to improve voters� daily lives.

From the �outsourcing� of US jobs overseas to rising budget deficits and spiralling costs of petrol and health insurance, America�s remaining uncommitted voters want more �solutions� and less rhetoric. The candidate who offers more of the former stands a very good chance of winning. Here, Mr. Kerry has the advantage. In the first two debates, he perfected an effective technique of agreeing with the president on the problems and the principles behind them but then disagreeing on solutions and execution. In all three debates, uncommitted voters preferred Mr. Kerry�s consensus-building style to Mr. Bush�s confrontational approach.

Mr. Bush, to recover the voters he lost in the debates, must put the domestic policy debate in the wider context of the war on terror where he is still more trusted than his opponent. He has repeatedly missed opportunities to pivot from Iraq to terrorism, and he never effectively drew the link between national security and economic security. If Mr. Kerry repeats his line that the president should not have chosen tax cuts over national security, Mr. Bush should counter by noting Mr. Kerry�s lacklustre 20-year record in the Senate. That is a proposition that swing voters could readily sign up to.

On the economy, Mr Bush cannot afford simply to defend his record. He must offer hope for the future. As statistics do not work, he must talk about the economy through stories of real Americans employees, small business owners and family farmers explaining how a second Bush term would boost the economy. Outsourcing, whether Republicans like it or not, is the key economic issue of 2004. The Bush administration got off to a bad start by appearing to defend the practice as a beneficial part of free trade. While that may be good economics, it is terrible politics. The president�s current response, to offer better education as the solution, is no solace to voters in swing states such as Ohio who have lost their jobs.

The president started well at articulating a Republican solution to outsourcing in his second debate when he said: �America must be the best place in the world to do business.� But without more detail, he is just not credible. Better education is a start, but he needs to talk about how oppressive taxation, regulation and litigation systems are sending jobs overseas and how he can fix that. Another big issue is healthcare. Here, Mr Bush repeatedly scored points by focusing on how rising medical liability premiums are driving up healthcare and health insurance costs.
On certain key issues, Mr Bush would do well to position himself in contrast to the �special interests� in Washington who oppose reform. On education, on taxes, on energy as well as on healthcare, the president sits on the opposite side to such interests. If he outlines his plans for a second term, he could paint himself as the reformer to Mr Kerry�s defence of the status quo.

Mr Bush was right to stop the angry, dismissive facial gestures that hurt him in the first debate. But if he wants to be the speaker rather than spectator at the next presidential inauguration, he will need to turn in a perfect performance every day from now through the election perfection that has eluded him so far.

The writer is a pollster and president of the Luntz Research Companies

Courtesy Financial Times

Posted by: JM at October 16, 2004 09:44 AM

I post this today to counter the information that the Bush administration presents to the public. This is important for people to know and understand.

-------------------------------------------------

Poll Shows Military Has Iraq Doubts

U.S. National - AP

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq (news - web sites) and put too much pressure on inadequately trained National Guard and reserve forces, according to a poll released Saturday.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that 62 percent in the military sample said the administration didn't send an adequate number of troops to Iraq. And 59 percent said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead.

Family members were more critical of the administration's Iraq policy than those on active duty.

This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush (news - web sites), Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.

A slight majority of the military and families, 51 percent, said showing photos of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware would increase respect for the troops.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) has refused to release government photos of the coffins, saying it has begun enforcing a policy installed in 1991 intended to respect the privacy of the families of the dead soldiers.

On other military matters:

_Four in 10, 42 percent, said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and 50 percent said no. Family members narrowly supported the idea, while those in the active military opposed it.

_One-fourth said the military draft should be reinstated, three-fourths said no. That is about the same level of opposition to the draft in the general population.

_Six in 10 of the regular military in the sample said they were properly trained and equipped.

_Only four in 10 of the Guard members and reservists questioned said they were properly trained and equipped.

_The military sample overwhelmingly approved of the work of women in the armed forces. Three-fourths said they performed as well as the men they work with.

_Eight in 10 said soldiers responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and their immediate commanders should be punished. Half said higher-level commanders should be punished and three in 10 said civilians in the Pentagon should be punished.

The poll of 655 in the active military (both regulars and reserves) and their families was taken Sept. 22-Oct. 5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Their answers were compared with those of 2,436 adults surveyed Sept. 7-Oct. 3 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Posted by: JM at October 16, 2004 10:54 AM

This is a group of veterans that support Bush:

Veterans Support Our Commander in Chief George W. Bush

President Bush Honors Our Veterans

"Our veterans have borne the costs of America's wars and have stood watch over America's peace. And, today, every veteran can be certain: The nation you served and the people you defended are grateful." President Bush, November 11, 2003

Keeping His Word
President Bush has fulfilled, and in many cases surpassed, commitments to veterans on four key issues:

Allowing Veteran Medicare Recipients to Continue Receiving TRICARE Benefits - The President signed the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Bill which allows veterans to continue to receive their TriCare health benefits even when they become Medicare eligible.

Timely Access to Quality Healthcare - The average time that a veteran has to wait to see a primary care physician has dropped 90% since 2001. The waiting list was 300,000 in 2001 and is now below 30,000. With the funding in the FY 2005 request, the VA will meet its goal scheduling non-urgent primary care for 93% of veterans within 30 days and 99% within 90 days.

Reduce the Backlog of Disability Claims - When President Bush took office, the number of claims waiting to be processed had soared to over 600,000 and as a result, many veterans were waiting an average of over 230 days for a claim to be processed. The VA has slashed its inventory of pending disability claims by 58% to 253,000 and reduced the average length of time it takes to process a claim by 30% to about 160 days. In 2005, 2.7 million veterans will receive $24.9 billion of these tax-free benefits from the VA.

Classify Diabetes as a Disability - The President proudly signed the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, which allowed diabetes to be considered a service-connected disability for veterans.

Supporting Concurrent Receipts
Concurrent Receipt - On November 24, 2003, President Bush signed legislation providing concurrent receipt of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation for those military retirees most deserving, the combat-disabled, reversing a century of law preventing concurrent receipt.

A Significant Increase in Resources
Making up for the 1990s - President Bush has provided more new funding for veterans in four years than President Clinton did in eight years. President Clinton averaged a 3 percent increase per year in the VA budget while President Bush has averaged an 8 percent increase per year. Since President Bush came into office in 2001 the VA budget has increased from $48 billion to $65 billion.

A Dramatic Increase in Funding - The President is proposing to increase funding for the VA by $5 billion next year - from $60.3 billion last year to $65.3 billion for the next fiscal year. This represents an 8% percent jump and more than 38% increase since 2001.

40% More for Medical Care - The President's $30 billion request for medical care in his FY 2005 budget represents more than a 40% increase from when he took office. As a result, 1.4 million more veterans will receive care in 2004 than in 2000 and 194 new community-based clinics will open to be more responsive to veterans' needs.

Improving Access to Health Care
Creating a Modern, Effecient, World-Class Health Care System - Through the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES), President Bush is working to restructure VA hospitals around the country to provide veterans with efficient access to quality health care. The FY 2005 budget more than doubles the amount previously request for construction of new and improved facilities. The President has proposed a 20% increase in outpatient health care services, create 48 new outpatient clinics, and construct two new VA hospitals.

Emergency Care - The President's budget allows the VA to pay for emergency room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals. Veterans with life-threatening illnesses should seek and receive care at the closest possible facility.

Prescription Drugs - The President took the unprecedented step of allowing veterans with a prescription from their private physician to have those prescriptions filled by the VA - saving veterans hundreds of dollars in prescription drug costs. This will benefit approximately 200,000 veterans.

Eliminating Copayments - The President has eliminated copays for veterans receiving hospice care. In addition, the Budget will eliminate all forms of copays for prisoners of war who have provided unique service to our Nation.

Caring for Families
Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. On December 16th, 2003, President Bush signed a bill authorizing $1 billion over the next ten years for new and expanded benefits for disabled veterans, surviving spouses, and children.

Restores Spousal Benefits. The spouses and children of veterans who are killed in action, or die of service related causes will receive Dependents Indemnity Compensation which allows the surviving spouse or dependent children to receive the full amount of accrued benefits if the veteran dies while their claim is still pending. Home loan guarantees are available to surviving spouses.

Education & Health Benefits for Children. Pensions are available to surviving spouses and unmarried children of deceased veterans with wartime experience. Dependents education assistance is available to spouses who have not remarried and the children of veterans who are killed in action, or die of service related disabilities.

Support Today for Tomorrow's Veterans
Better Pay and Housing - President Bush has increased basic salary and payments for food and housing almost 29 percent since taking office. President Bush has provided historic increases in military compensation. Under former President Clinton, military pay decreased an average of almost 2% per year relative to consumer price index. Since President Bush took office, military pay increased an average of 5.2% per year relative to consumer price index. The average compensation is now more than $40,000 for enlisted members and more than $79,000 for officers.

Better Benefits - Service members also receive retirement benefits and health care for themselves and their families at little or no charge.

Tax Relief - On December 16, 2003, the President signed the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003 to provide tax relief and other benefits to members of the armed services and their families.

Prevents Double Taxation. This law prevents states from using the income earned by a service member in determining the spouse's tax rate when the spouse works and taxed in a state other than the state in which they maintain their permanent legal residence. Protection from Eviction. Service members and their families are protected from eviction from housing while on active duty due to nonpayment of rents and housing leases up to $2,400 per month - up from $1,200 per month.

Life Insurance. Updates life insurance protections provided to activated Guard and reserve members by increasing from $10,000 to $250,000 the maximum policy coverage that the federal government will protect from default for nonpayment while on active duty.

and

Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

President Bush greets troops aboard a flight headed to Iraq and Kuwait in Bangor Maine in September.
Kevin Bennett, Bangor Daily News

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)

Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

Even so, experts who examined the survey results said they do not bode well for the Kerry campaign's efforts to woo the military, a traditionally Republican and conservative voting bloc. The Kerry campaign has highlighted his war record in an effort to burnish his credentials as a prospective commander in chief.

"You can't dismiss" the results, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who for years has studied the political leanings of the U.S. military. Feaver said it's unlikely that Bush will receive 70% of votes cast by military personnel. But the results suggest it will be difficult for Kerry to make substantial gains among a group that has strongly supported Republican presidential candidates in the post-Vietnam era.

Feaver said he suspects Kerry is losing support among those in uniform because he seems less committed than Bush to prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Richard Kohn, a University of North Carolina history professor who has studied the political culture of the military, said the Bush campaign has been effective in creating the impression that, if elected, Kerry might "cut and run" in Iraq. "None of us who has studied Kerry's character believes that, but the Bush campaign has established in the public's mind a connection to Vietnam," Kohn said.

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade called the Army Times Publishing effort "an inaccurate e-mail survey" and said that Kerry has "the vision and values to keep faith with military families and America's veterans."

Of survey respondents, 65% of active-duty and 67% of Guard and reserve troops said that Kerry's activities after Vietnam made them less likely to vote for him. Kerry served in Vietnam as a naval officer and was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. He protested the war after returning home.

Only 12% of active-duty troops and 16% of Guard and reserve troops said Bush's actions in the National Guard made them less likely to vote for him. Bush received a coveted pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War and missed a number of mandatory drills after he stopped flying fighter jets in April 1972.

Active-duty, Guard and reserve troops number about 2.4 million, a small slice of the electorate. But in closely contested states such as Florida, their votes could be crucial. The survey found little difference in presidential support among the four military branches.

While there is a lot of information available on how military veterans have voted, data on the voting patterns of active-duty personnel are scarce. Feaver said experts believe military personnel favored Bush over Al Gore 2-1 in the 2000 presidential race.

A number of military analysts, including Feaver, had been predicting as recently as this summer that Bush would suffer a slight erosion this year based on a number of factors, including misgivings about the conduct of the war in Iraq and dislike of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in some military circles. Of those responding to the survey, about three-fifths said they approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq; one-quarter said they disapprove.

Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist.

So you see depending on the source opinons vary by militar personnel.

Ask yourself these questions:

Does Kerry's record back what he is saying? Did he vote for or against the first Gulf War?

Did he vote for or against the partial birth abortion bill, (which the ban is extremely popular with most Americans)?

Is he for or against the preservation of traditional marriage or does he equate it to a civil rights issue(also popular with the minority constituencies?

Now ask your self.

How much money was spent in Bosnia? Was it worth it?

We lost 5,000 men in Iwo Jima alone, was WWII worth it?

Can Kerry back up his promises with his record or do they conflict?

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 16, 2004 12:20 PM

Gore supposedly won the debates and what is he doing now? Noone knows who is going to win, because noone can predict what voter turnout will be. Don't get too excited. Now if you guys keep signing up the dead and the incarcerated you've got a good chance of getting Kerry in. Did you know that in Ohio 2000 there were precincts that did not register 1 Bush vote. A little suspicious. In Franklin County there are more people registered than live there. I know there are allegations that Republicans are cheating too. I think it is sad that we have come to this. At this rate Afganistan will have a declared winner quicker than we will.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 16, 2004 12:27 PM

Wayne:

I am a moderate Democrat. I have some progressive ideas, but also have some conservative ideas. I don't base my vote on a single issue. I believe in compassion for everyone. I don't believe in wasting money on pork barrel programs. I don't believe in the concept of compassionate conservatism. I think that is bogus... all fluff, no meat. I don't see the compassion in it. I dislike communism and socialism and I do believe in a free market economy that is fair to the consumer. I am for the working and middle class Americans who seem to be squeezed all the time. I feel that America is becoming a country of the super rich and the very poor with not much in between. The "in between" is what makes this country what it is. If something isn't done for "us", we are going to be in big trouble. Healthcare costs are ridiculous and insurance costs are ridiculous. Not everyone in this country is college educated. The jobs that were available for people without a college degree are disappearing with little hope of finding replacement jobs that pay comparable salaries.

I think the country is on the wrong track for many reasons, not just "I receive unrequested dirty email messages or I think marriage is between a man and a woman". I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but just because people are currently challenging that definition, doesn't sway me as far as my vote is concerned. I am voting on who I tend to agree with more and at this point in my life, that person is John Kerry.

Posted by: JM at October 16, 2004 01:26 PM

JM,
I really doubt that you would be able to do anything if I were to call you a name to your face. With that being said I am sorry for using the language I chose. Don't get me wrong, there are very few in life that scare me.

About the God issue, I don't beleive that God is on America's side or the republican's side either. What I hope is that America is on God's side, democrat and republican alike. Ask yourself if you think God approves of a woman's chooice to abort. Do you beleive God approves of partial birth abortion? What about embrionic stem cell research?

d.jones,
I don't believe a word about the reporter, if this story of yours had any truth to it you would have included the reporters name. You left it out so I beleive that it is just another false story on your part.

Posted by: Wayne at October 16, 2004 01:39 PM

JM,
Your poll from the military sounds like it is in favor of Bush. I am confused why you would post it.

Posted by: Wayne at October 16, 2004 02:30 PM

JM,
I am one of the people who did not attend college. The only skills I have are the ones I have learned in life. I can do many things in the construction trade and did not attend a vocational school. To give you an example I just recently gutted and remodeled my bathroom at home and accomplished it all in 4 days. The reason non college jobs are diappearing is that too many skilled tradesman are not what they claim. I am in the construction buisness and see what the so called skilled tradesman can do. It is pitiful. For every 50 skilled tredesman maybe one of them is truly that.

Give me an example of one of your conservative ideas.

I await your response.

Posted by: Wayne at October 16, 2004 08:03 PM

Ordained ministers preach the word of God. I just quoted the word of God. Because if you read the word of God, like all christians are supposed to you would know the word of God. I am qualified to quote God's word because I'm not using my own word's but GOD'S WORDS. There is also a right to freedom of speech in this country so please don't tell me what I can and can not say!
Your right Adam and Eve were naked until they sinned and we've all sinned haven't we and fallen short of the glory of God. I do give to the poor and I am not rich. I don't own my own home and I am moving out of this house in November.
I do pratice what I preach. I'm not the one calling people names on here, you are. You are basing your opinion about me on what I quoted from the bible. God's word is God's word and you can't dispute that.

You said, You and Reverend Bush along with his cult followers, use the Bible as a tool to pick parts and pieces that agree with your own personal predjudices and tell everyone they are going to hell.

No, I used to believe a lot differently on a lot of issues until I found Christ as my personal Savior. Now that's all changed. As a christian I know God's word means what God's word says and I have never told anyone they were going to hell.

You said, You people quoting the Bible or no better than David Karesh in Waco, TX. Sane people are not falling for that trick.

Are you saying God's word is not God's word?

You said, A President should run as an American Citizen, not based on his religious affiliation, as John F. Kennedy stated.

Well, here's some quotes from famous presidents of our past.

George Washington,"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

�What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.�
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

John Quincy Adams, � �Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" �Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Theodore Roosevelt "The true Christian is the true citizen"
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

You said,
Republican label callers yell about gay people, yet it's ok for them to fight in your wars, care for your wounded, care for the American elderly who can no longer fully care for themselves. It's ok that Gay people work in hospitals to care for anyone sick, or daycare centers to care for your children while most Adults are at work trying to make a living. I have never seen so much predjudice and hatred in my life, and I am over 40 years old.

Love the sinner hate the sin. I do not hate anybody. Are you judging?

You said, We will become so weak and divided that any third world Country wouldn't have to do much to take over American and establish a Dictatorship, like Bush is trying to do. Then what would happen to your religion and Bible. You won't have the right to practice any religion at all.

Bush is keeping the faith. It's already happening to Christianity and the Bible because christians won't stand up for God's word. Prayer has been taken out of our schools, the Ten Commandments have been taken out of our schools, the Ten Commandments have been taken out of our courthouses. They're trying to get "under God" taken out of the Pledge and in God we Trust off our coins.

In the Great Hall, The East Pediment, and the North Courtroom of the U.S. Supreme Court Moses is shown with the Ten Commandments. Also above where the Chief Justice sits a banner reads, "Justice, the Guardian of Liberty." Centered above the banner is a depiction of Moses seated and holding the Ten Commandments.

God Bless

your post follows:

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 16, 2004 08:35 AM

Posted by: Christina at October 17, 2004 12:28 AM

WHY LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES AND DEMOCRATS SHOULDN'T PAY TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO POLLS AND WHAT THE LYING HERO HATING PRO-BUSHITE REPUBLICANS (LHHPBRs) ARE SAYING:

What we need to remember is that the powers that be control the polls. As proof, I offer the fact that in 2,000 the polls were always favoring George W. Bush over Al Gore. As a matter of fact the polls said that George W. Bush would win the popular vote and that the only question was whether or not he might lose the electoral vote.

The way it turned out was that Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 and would have won the electoral vote too, had all the votes been counted in Florida. Well, of course that didn't happen and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court where the 9 Court Justices, on a vote of 5 to 4, selected George W. Bush to be our Presidency. All that is history now and we were condemned to accept George W. Bush as President for the last almost four years now.

My point in telling you all this is to remind you, to not worry too much about the polls and simply go out to vote early or before Election Day on November 2, 2004 if at all possible. Every vote will count so take as many of your friends and neighbors to go vote with you. I'm sure that the terrible experiences of living the past four years with George W. Bush and his LHHPBRs will soon be over. My warmest wishes to all.

One more thing, I would recommend that all of us vote early in case the LHHPBRs devise a way to attempt keeping us from voting like they did in Florida. I hate to say this, but it could happen again, if not in Florida perhaps in Ohio or some other state. If we attempt to vote early, that'll make it more difficult for the LHHPBRs to accumplish that. If it happens, we'll be able to do something about it immediately once it's reported. In any case, vote early if at all possible.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 17, 2004 04:16 AM

Chris, OH

I always figure that the person who votes against his own economic interests is the one being fooled. I'm an average American citizen who worked for a living the old fashion way. I was a proud active union member and I learned a lot from that experience.

Like I have already said, when I was a young man I served in the active US Army in California, Germany, Kansas and in Colorado. I spent a total of 13 years in the active National Guard, active US Army and active Army reserve.

I have been an active American citizen for about 50 years. I have learned the importance of having a good union contract that details the responsibilities of both the employer and the employee. I know first hand about the importance of getting good wages, benefits and working conditions.

I also know the importance of staying politically organized in order to have an influence on the politicians who always want our vote and then want us to disappear once they are in power. I'm not worried about John Kerry because we're all he has got.

George W. Bush on the other hand has all those powerful and wealthy HMOs, industries, corporations and billionaires as his clients. He doesn't really need you or any average American.

You'd be foolish to vote for him but go for it if you must. But try to realize that it's you who's being fooled, unless of course you're a multi-millionaire. Are you?

Your POST follows:

"Abel, I will bypass the rhetoric and go right to the meat. Sadly it is your camp that is being fooled. John Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. The liberals will give him a wink and a nod to say what it will take to get elected.
I know where Bush stands on defense, on abortion, on marriage etc. Sadly you have too many people that do not know where Kerry stands and will still vote the Democratic ticket. Voting irregularities are popping up all over Ohio already. Franklin County has registered more people than live there. Last go around there were precincts that did not report 1 Bush vote."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 14, 2004 01:43 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 17, 2004 04:41 AM

Abel,

As I have said before you sound like a hard worker with a good work ethic the problem is I feel that their are too many abuses inhernet in the unions. I hear about them first hand from my union friends. I am not a millionare but I believe that the ownership society the GW talks about reflects all of our best interests. People nee to stop depending on the government and depend on the private sector. You and I have clear ideological difference. It was clear in the last debate and based on your beliefs you are supporting the candidate that reflects your interests, I guess. I don't see it but if that is what you believe than that is what you should do. I have seized my opportunties and they were not given to me by the government. I appreciate the fact that I don't pay more taxes just because I am married and I like the fact that I get to keep more of my own money to invest in my childrens' future. I have worked for employers who were unfair and I used my right to quit and find another job. It semms to work for me. When I realized that I disagreed with most business owners' ethics I started my own company. I am grateful I live in country that has afforded me the opportunity to do that. I also appreciate that my small business customers can invest more in their businsses with regards to tax code 179. But more importantly I am confident that GW shares my views on family values, protecting the unborn child and national security. Will GW hit some snags absolutely, but does he have this country's best interests in mind, I believe he does.

You have no reason to fear John Kerry because he represents your interests, problem is, he does not represent the interests of most Americans and they are the uninformed/misinformed ones being fooled.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 17, 2004 05:09 PM

Wayne:

I am against abortion.

Posted by: JM at October 17, 2004 08:23 PM

I know that endorsements probably don't sway many people, but they are still interesting to read.

Newspaper endorsements for President from 10/17/04.

Posted by: JM at October 17, 2004 08:43 PM

I know that endorsements probably don't sway many people, but they are still interesting to read. This article was taken from Yahoo!News:

Newspaper endorsements in the 2004 presidential campaign between President Bush (news - web sites), a Republican, and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), a Democrat.

Kerry

The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, Calif., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"John Kerry offers an experienced, steady choice to lead the nation in a different direction. Voters have plenty of reasons to deny Bush a second term, but two stand out. Consider the twin centerpieces of the Bush presidency ? the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and tax cuts."

The Jackson Sun, Jackson, Tenn., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"Sen. John Kerry is the best choice for president in the Nov. 2 election. He offers voters a more moderate approach on many issues than the Bush administration. That is something we believe the nation needs."

The Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, Minn., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"Sen. John Kerry is the best hope for regaining America's promise, offering the country a fresh start internationally and a return of the presidency to an office of stature and respect."

The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N.C., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"When a president is seeking re-election, the contest is inevitably a referendum on his service. ... We think George W. Bush has made the wrong choices on too many matters important to our country."

The Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct 17:

"Today, the (budget) surpluses are gone, replaced by record deficits that our grandchildren will be paying off. The economic engine is on life support ... The nation is in a seeming endless war in Iraq draining our financial resources and killing American soldiers at a pace the American people should find unacceptable. It's time for change."

The Free Press, Mankato, Minn., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"For the last 20 years Kerry has built coalitions, worked with both parties to get things done and been able to communicate in a way that instills confidence in voters and colleagues. ... Kerry will be better than Bush at uniting the country, something that's desperately needed today."

The Daily Herald, Arlington Heights, Ill., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"(President Bush) and his band of neoconservatives have not acted conservatively in any sense of the word. ... (John) Kerry, we acknowledge, stands to the left of this newspaper on many issues. ... Faced with two imperfect candidates, the Daily Herald endorses John Kerry for president."

The Miami Herald, Miami, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"The debates have placed a spotlight on the skills and abilities of the two contenders, with the president getting the worst of it."

The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, Mo., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17

"John Kerry is not a perfect candidate with a flawless record. But he is a man of obvious intelligence, compassion, patriotism and courage whose presidency would be guided by a clear understanding of what went wrong in the last four years and what needs to be done in the next four."

The Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"Kerry's most difficult challenge as president would be cleaning up after Bush in Iraq. Kerry at least has a shot at getting the rest of the world to help. ... Kerry can regain the good will and standing we had in the wake of 9/11 and rebuild the alliances that Bush discarded."

St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"The best evidence of the poverty of the Bush administration's record is the Bush re-election team's incessantly negative campaign against John Kerry. ... The cynicism and illogic of those attacks ? nobody can be a flip-flopper and a left-wing ideologue at the same time ? should be obvious."

Akron Beacon Journal, Akron, Ohio, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"He would be a sound steward, replacing a cowboy ethic with a welcome pragmatism, advancing American interests and values, seeking to reverse a careless course abroad, just as he would at home."

Bradenton Herald, Bradenton, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"Kerry brings to the job of president more than 20 years of Senate leadership, a personal knowledge of war and hope for a new approach to end the Iraqi nightmare and address the nation's domestic problems."

The Daytona Beach News-Journal, Daytona Beach, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"John Kerry's distinguished service has prepared him to be the leader this country needs. ... Kerry and his running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) appreciate that alliances on a global scale are the most effective weapons against terrorism and conventional war."

Florida Today, Rockledge, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"America needs new leadership, and we believe Democrat John Kerry can bring it to the White House, based on three decades of far-reaching public service that make him exceptionally qualified to be President of the United States."

The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17

"Issue by issue, Sen. Kerry has laid out a better, fairer, more progressive agenda. ... John Kerry is not in denial about Iraq or any of the other problems Mr. Bush will have left him."

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"The Massachusetts senator possesses a prodigious intellect capable of grasping the complexities of the serious issues facing the nation and the world."

The Daily Camera of Boulder, Colo., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17:

"Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would revive national debate on issues too long neglected during the war on terrorism."

Bush

The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"John Kerry's record of waffling on issues large and small does not instill confidence that he would provide the steady leadership that these uncertain times demand. With George Bush (news - web sites), however, there never is any doubt about where he stands. That is why he merits another four years in the White House."

The Las Cruces Sun-News, Las Cruces, N.M., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, have said over and over that they have a plan for this and a plan for that. Where are the plans? ... (Bush) doesn't flip-flop, and this is not the time to jump ship."

The News-Gazette, Champaign, Ill., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17

"(President Bush) is, in our view, the man who better recognizes the threat posed to the country and the world by international terrorism and the one more willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of world opinion, to neutralize or destroy whose who would wage attacks on American soil."

The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Ill., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17

"The presidential election comes down to one thing: trust. ... Frankly, both President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, have given voters reason to doubt. But we would give the edge to Bush."

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"Given the political leanings of the nation and Congress, it requires a Republican president ? it requires George W. Bush ? to be able to make, and sell, the difficult decisions that the next four years will bring."

The Indianapolis Star endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"It is time for experience and resolve, which is why George Bush should be re-elected for a second term. Without a re-election facing him, the president can move to do those things he said he would do in his first presidential campaign."

The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"We would hope and expect (President Bush) to shift more to the center, befitting the compassionate conservatism that again has become a Bush mantra. But the overarching role of the president is that of commander in chief. It is our belief that Mr. Bush would continue to effectively defend this country."

The Repository, Canton, Ohio, endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"Despite his mistakes, America knows who Bush is. He has led the country through immense troubles. Kerry, burdened by all the votes that came in the U.S. Senate for 20 years, still leaves many questions about what kind of president he would be."

The New Hampshire Sunday News, Manchester, N.H., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"President George W. Bush (news - web sites) deserves re-election on Nov. 2 for many reasons, the most important being the need for his continued leadership in the global fight against Islamist terrorism."

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond, Va., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17:

"One ticket represents the mentality of 9/10, the other of 9/12. The choice is clear. On November 2, re-elect George W. Bush."

No endorsement

The Winston-Salem Journal, Winston-Salem, N.C., endorsed neither candidate Oct. 17:

"This is a presidency in deep trouble, made worse by the refusal to acknowledge the trouble. ... Unfortunately, Sen. John Kerry has not convinced us that he will be able to steer the nation out of the mess in Iraq and move forward appropriately in the war on terrorism."

The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, Fla., endorsed neither candidate Oct. 17:

"We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush."

Posted by: JM at October 17, 2004 08:45 PM

Chris, OH

Listen to yourself, you say, "People need to stop depending on the government and depend on the private sector," and yet you want to give the government a Constitutional Amendment and the power to punish a woman and her doctor should the woman decide to have a "private" abortion procedure performed.

Don't you realize that's a hypocritical statement right there? You also want the government to make it unlawful for two gay or lesbian citizens to get married if they decide to do that. Isn't that also being hypocritical? Shouldn't the individuals concerned have the power to do whatever they decide to do, in privacy?

You also believe that the government should have the power to spy on American citizens. Isn't that the position of our government on the Patriot's Act? What's going to happen to our private "privacy" rights if we allow our governmnet to have that kind of power?

I could just go on and on regarding the power you want to delegate to our government. Me, I'm against the government having all this power. As a matter of fact, I regard "private" American citizens as being soverign in America. I believe in "private" American citizens having all the power and not the government. That's what our US Constitution is all about.

I say, "Power to the People!" To me, George W. Bush is simply one of our many public servants and private American citizens outrank him. He works for us---we do not work for him. He's on our payroll---we are not on his. When I was in the US Military, I accepted that civilians always outranked me. haven't I told you all this before?

You say, "I am confident that GW shares my views on family values," but I disagree and that's why I say that George W. Bush is fooling you and not me. Like I said in my other POST, George W. Bush represents the powerful and wealthy interests of HMOs, Insurance Companies, Banking Interests, Oil Industries, and of course the very wealthy Individual Interests but certainly not your interest if you're a small business owner.

I said before, that George W. Bush already has his clients that he represents and they include neither you nor me. Look Chris, all I ask is that you consider what I'm saying for a short while and study the possibility that I might be right.

Am I asking too much? I hope you understand that Liberals have always defended the rights of individuals against laws that the government wanted to inforce. Like, for example, the federal government wanted to use a Northwestern state as a place to store nuclear waste, thereby contaminating it and we worked against that. We won that case but now the federal government wants to use the state of Texas for the same purpose but we're fighting that too. We simply don't wish to see our sacred homeland contaminated with neuclear wastes. Our children deserve better.

To repeat, John Kerry is not obligated to serve the powerful interests that George W. Bush is obligated to serve. Kerry only has us to be concerned about. As a matter of fact, Kerry really has no choice in the matter. Like I said before, we're all he's got.

My point is that your view or notion about what we're about is wrong. We are for individual private interests and against those interests of the powerful and wealthy including those of HMOs, Insurance Companies, Banking Interests, Oil Industries, and of course the very wealthy Individual Interests including multi-millionaires and billionaires.

These interests including organized religious institutions already have too much influence on our government and they are what George W. Bush considers "My Base." Our duty is to defend the rights of individual private American citizens and not those of the very powerful wealthy interests. That's what strong Unions are really all about. We have to provide for our common welfare---isn't that also in our US Constitution?

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, As I have said before you sound like a hard worker with a good work ethic the problem is I feel that their are too many abuses inhernet in the unions. I hear about them first hand from my union friends. I am not a millionare but I believe that the ownership society the GW talks about reflects all of our best interests. People nee to stop depending on the government and depend on the private sector. You and I have clear ideological difference. It was clear in the last debate and based on your beliefs you are supporting the candidate that reflects your interests, I guess. I don't see it but if that is what you believe than that is what you should do. I have seized my opportunties and they were not given to me by the government. I appreciate the fact that I don't pay more taxes just because I am married and I like the fact that I get to keep more of my own money to invest in my childrens' future. I have worked for employers who were unfair and I used my right to quit and find another job. It semms to work for me. When I realized that I disagreed with most business owners' ethics I started my own company. I am grateful I live in country that has afforded me the opportunity to do that. I also appreciate that my small business customers can invest more in their businsses with regards to tax code 179. But more importantly I am confident that GW shares my views on family values, protecting the unborn child and national security. Will GW hit some snags absolutely, but does he have this country's best interests in mind, I believe he does.
You have no reason to fear John Kerry because he represents your interests, problem is, he does not represent the interests of most Americans and they are the uninformed/misinformed ones being fooled."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 17, 2004 05:09 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 18, 2004 12:05 AM

Abel,

I considered your arguments when I was a younger man. I saw the damage of liberal ideology. I saw how abortion kills a human being and the soul of a woman, in that case it is not a civil liberty it is a crime against humanity. There is a difference. I don't say homosexuality is illegal, I just say they, homosexuals should not be given special privileges or have the right to indoctrinate my kids in public school. What about my parental rights? My daughter can get an abortion without my consent or knowledge. The government has an obligation to protect our rights.

Now when I say "the people need to stop depending on the government and depend on the private sector" I am not asking them to ensure I have enough food on the table. That is my responsibility and it is not the role of the government. That is the ideological difference. I do not want a tax and spend liberal in the White House. So you see we just see things from a different perspective. Go through the projects sometime and see if the government social programs are working.

The so called powerful and wealthy are the private sector, they have just achieved more than you and I.

My problem is with one branch of government in particular, the judicial branch. Judges like the ones in Louisiana and California that overrule the will of the people.

Your side submits to special interests also, but they are not mine, Naral, planned parenthood, Glisten the Rainbow Push extortionists etc., etc.

The unions don't represent all. They represent some and they don't represent me.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 18, 2004 07:53 AM

JM,
I know you are against abortion and I really respect that. With that being said, if it is soomething you beleive in, why don't you fight to ban it?

My question is just pointing out that we fight for things every day, like you fighting for Kerry to get elected, yet when it comes to something that is difficult to fight for we stop. Why? I am just as guilty as the nest person on this.

This is just a randomo thought.

Posted by: Wayne at October 18, 2004 06:19 PM

Regardless of what you Republicans say, I must admit, I predicted that Senator John Kerry would win the election simply because George W. Bush isn't intelligent enough to win a fair race. As usual, I was right. I met with some executives at Perot Systems today. There were representatives from the National Security Homeland Commitee also attending a meeting there. Perot Systems has a contract with these people. I think they got a bit upset (not that I care) because I made a comment about their concern with America's Security should be taken more serious. To me, during cordial conversation, they seemed more concerned with bragging about the exclusive hotels and prior traveling benefits at American Government expense, While our American Soldier are refusing direct orders in Iraq due to unsafe vehicles. They should be happy staying at the Texas "do drop inn motel", and flying commercial, not first class. It's my money they are spending. The American troops safety is more important to me than American Homeland Security staying in a fancy Texas hotel.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Back!

Posted by: d. jones at October 18, 2004 07:41 PM

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 16, 2004 12:27 PM

Now if you guys keep signing up the dead and the incarcerated you've got a good chance of getting Kerry in.

Chris, That's not at all fair. I honestly believe Jeb and GW JR Bush are already tampering with the Florida Voting Machines, and Jeb, along with the Current Republican Secretary of State are already involved in voting scandals before the election even starts. I Agree, its sad that we even have to question if our vote will count once again.

Wyane, I don't care what the Republican Texas political analyst reporters name was. It was his job to report the truth. I bet you can't name a single person dead as a result of 911, including the Iranian or Afganistan (not Iraqi) pilots. I know for a fact that GW JR can't name all of Osama's top advisors, nor all those who were beheaded in Iraq. Can you name any without searching the web? GW JR a.k.a. The Dummy rarely mentions Osama's name. GW JR can pack his bags, along with his road kill Wife, and hit the road jack, "and don't ya come back no more, no more, no more, no more".

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 18, 2004 08:00 PM

d.jones,
Your right that I can't think of someone's name who has gotten killed because of this mess. I do remember seeing them jump out of the WTC so they would not burn. Do you remember that?

Your arguements are really not helping us look to the future, just more criticizing with no answers.

Why don't you state Kerry's position on Iraq without being negative? I don't think you can, and stick to the facts.

Posted by: Wayne at October 18, 2004 10:47 PM

You must be joking? You mean the same people in Broward county that did not know how to vote? Give me a break GW and Jeb don't have to trip those people up they do it all on there own. You guys are just preparing a diversion for your good old fashion Texas style whoopin'.

D., your comments about the President and his wife are disrespectful. Just stick to the debate. I sense you you have seen the polls on www.realclearpolitics.com. Kerry's campaign is starting to unravel. The deaniacs are starting to wonder if he really is an anti-war candidate. That's half his base. He could only ride the fence for so long.....So long.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 18, 2004 11:09 PM

d. jones

That hatred you spew is unmatchable.

FYI - YOur buddy Arafat endorsed Kerry for president today! This must be one of his foreign leader allies he talks about.

Even Putin said today that Zarqawi is testing us in Iraq to hurt Bush and cause us to vote him out. HE also said that doing this would send a message to the terrorists that they can beat us. And Blair is sending troops into the Baghdad area to help us. I believe both men do not want Kerry in office. Why would they? He is not willing to defend anything. This would leave a huge gap in the world to protect millions while Kerry conducts global tests, litmus tests and goes over one of his gazillion plans.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 19, 2004 12:30 AM

Fair Race? You've got to be kidding. This has been the dirtiest campaign I've ever seen. Kerry and cohorts are out there, not just lying, but preying upon the fears of Americans. They spread rumors of intended voter fraud with no evidence while they go out and storm Republican headquarters and attack the staff. They spread fears of a secret Presidential draft, while they propose the draft on the Senate floor. They cry that Bush is going to gut Social Security, while Kerry's Plan will cripple the economy and the recent 17% hike in cost was the result of a Clinton Policy that Kerry voted for. They whine about the improbablilities of an election in spite of the fact that there were elections in Afghanistan. Kerry has never won a fair race...EVER! It's all about dirty politics and spreading the fear of social injustice further dividing America with their hate speech and the suppression on minorities with their welfare system. Nobody in America seems to give a Damn that the majority of the troops, who are the ones laying their lives on the line in Iraq are supporting the President. Nobody cares that the military walks out when Kerry shows up to give a speech because they know what he means to their service. Nobody wants to give them a voice in the election. Nobody seems to care that the real voter fraud this year is going to come from dead democrats and illegal aliens who are being pushed through the system that is trying to stop this sort of thing. Kerry slapped the faces of those who served honorably in the 1970's and he's doing it again. What a disgrace!!!

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 19, 2004 12:55 AM

Here is some of Abel's finer posts;

JM,
The truth is that I'm still a conservative but what George W. Bush has been doing to our country is completely unforgivable.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 26, 2004 02:58 AM

As for the "Liberal" label, I'm now a proud Liberal myself and I proudly admit it.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 12, 2004 10:32 PM

This sums up our friend Abel.

Posted by: Wayne at October 19, 2004 01:16 AM

In response to Abel's lengthy cut and paste article's here's one about the truth about voter fraud in Florida. He won't want to read this and of course it will be all lies!!!

____________________

FOX NEWS' BRIT HUME: "It is an article of faith among Democrats that the 2000 election was stolen from them by the deliberate disenfranchisement of hundred of thousands if not millions of voters in Florida alone. After the election, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, not noted for having Republican sympathies, conducted an investigation. And what did it find? Peter Kirsanow is a Republican member of the commission he joins me now from Cleveland. Mr. Kirsanow, welcome and thank you for joining us."

US CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONER PETER KIRSANOW: Thank you.

HUME: "Tell me about the Civil Rights Commission's inquiries into Florida 2000."

KIRSANOW: "It was a six-month investigation into a number of allegations pertaining to voter intimidation, harassment, and disenfranchisement, much of which was alleged to have been intentional. In addition, activists had claimed that dogs and hoses were being used to prevent blacks from going to the polls and casting a vote. It was a fairly intensive investigation and what it revealed was that thousands of ballots were, in fact, spoiled by voters, but there was no evidence whatsoever of any voter intimidation, any voter disenfranchisement, intentional disenfranchisement or harassment. Mistakes were made mainly by voters and there were some glitches in the balloting, but allegations or insinuations that there was somehow some type of sinister effort to disenfranchise people is absolutely false. What was found is that blacks were approximately -- and it's difficult to tell because obviously there is no race category on the ballots -- but if you extrapolate from heavily black precincts, it would appear as if blacks were three times as likely to spoil their ballots than whites, but mistakes are not the same thing as disenfranchisement. I'd also add that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of justice also conducted their own investigation. They did find three violations of the Voting Rights Act. The allegations and the evidence showed that the violations consisted of failure to provide bilingual ballots to some Haitian and Hispanic voters in three counties."

HUME: "How many?"

KIRSANOW: "In three counties, and it is indeterminate as to how many voters didn't get it. It seems to be a handful. And in one location there was some hostility by poll workers toward Hispanic voters. In each of the counties, the county supervisor and those who controlled the election process were Democrats. And that's the same -- that's true for also 24 of the 25 counties in which there was the highest ballot spoilage rate."

HUME: "talk to me about ballot spoilage. Obviously it raises questions in the minds of at least some people when you have these allegations that ballots were spoiled and it tends to be concentrated in areas where there's a high percentage of African-American voters. What about that?"

KIRSANOW: "Well, it is true that -- or at least it appears based on the statistical evidence there that there were more, as I indicated, ballot spoilage or higher ballot spoilage rates in high concentration black areas. But everyone -- there is no indication whatsoever that there was some type of discrepancy in terms of the machinery, the ballots themselves, and if you take a look at the correlative evidence, it would suggest that ballot spoilage relates most closely to how frequently people vote and also in addition to that the educational or literacy levels of those who vote. It has absolutely nothing to do --"

HUME: "Well I just wanted to ask you what the term ballot spoilage means? It sounds like someone spilled a coca cola on their ballot or it got stepped on or it got torn or it got bent, but that isn't exactly what the word means, is it?"

KIRSANOW: "No, what it means is you saw, for example, the hanging chad issues, people who may have over voted by pressing or punching through two holes for a particular candidate or proposition or the under votes where there was simply a slight perforation in the ballot so it was impossible to actually count. That is spoiling the ballot or not casting a recordable vote."

HUME: "All right. Now, the allegation is made, though, that, I mean, the suggestion is here that you are making and that I guess the Commission found is this is voter error? Is that what this comes down to?"

KIRSANOW: "That's precisely right. It's voter error and there were some glitches in terms of getting ballots out, but those were sporadic. There was one situation in which, that caused some problems, and that was the so-called felon purge list. Where there was a list developed to prohibit the kind of fraud that had occurred in a previous election, that is, having ineligible felons vote. This list was completely inaccurate. It had a number of failings to it. And the allegation, at least the principle allegation at the outset as that blacks were more likely to be placed on the list than whites. And the insinuation or the inference to be drawn from that that this was somehow part of a scheme to disenfranchise certain types of voters. The facts are that twice as many whites were improperly placed on the ballot, on the felon purge list as blacks. And in addition to that, as The Miami Herald found, approximately 6,500 ineligible voters, ineligible felons did in fact vote, and as they concluded, the biggest problem with the felon purge list was that it permitted felons to vote."

HUME: "And in terms of people who might have been eligible who were excluded because they were mistakenly on the list, last question, quickly, roughly how many, do you know?"

KIRSANOW: "Don't know that. That is difficult to ascertain."

HUME: "We talking about hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands?"

KIRSANOW: "Probably in the hundreds."

HUME: "Mr. Kirsanow, thank you very much."

KIRSANOW: "Thank you."

______________________________________

Got it Able. That's from a Civil Rights Group and their own investigations. It was white's hit by the felon purge list, not blacks and hispanics and 6,500 felons did, in fact, vote in Florida. STrike those votes and the 30,000 Democrats who voted twice (once in New York and once in Florida) and then add the votes that Gore had thrown out from the military and Bush would have won Florida by a landslide.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 19, 2004 02:00 AM

d.,
what is your point? Maybe you are catching, because I was about to argue that Bush does know
all of OBL's top advisors, or that right now no one does because he's probably got different ones now he's hiding, that it doesn't matter now that he's ousted, or it doesn't matter now that they have representitive government, or that Wayne does know a single name of someone who died in 911 (pssst Wayne, finaicier Morgan Stanley was on the 71st floor of the first tower that fell) but I would sound as petty and nonsensical. I would also respond by asking you who the current 'Republican Secretary of State' is, or who taught them how to be such electronic experts, but I'll only ask this- when a voice speaks within your mind... is there an echo?
By the way, regarding your comment "GW JR can pack his bags, along with his road kill Wife, and hit the road jack, "and don't ya come back no more, no more, no more, no more". His name isn't Jac-- ohmygod, you ARE catching...

Posted by: Dave at October 19, 2004 07:48 AM

John Kerry is now getting desperate he spouts more lies every day on issues they are making up Says he has a plan but does not talk about it

Posted by: wpnsgy at October 19, 2004 01:09 PM

JM,
The truth is that I'm still a conservative but what George W. Bush has been doing to our country is completely unforgivable.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 26, 2004 02:58 AM

As for the "Liberal" label, I'm now a proud Liberal myself and I proudly admit it.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 12, 2004 10:32 PM

You got it wrong. It's George W. Bush who shot himself in the foot. You're also wrong in thinking that George W. Bush is a Conservative. I'm a Conservative and George W. Bush is no Conservative.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 18, 2004 09:55 PM

Which one is it Abel? You have been found for the liar you are.

Posted by: Wayne at October 19, 2004 05:25 PM

Police Call on Kerry to Stop Misrepresenting Their Support
10/14/2004 6:34:00 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.
"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."
Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.
"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."
Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police.
"First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."
"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."
The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, with more than 318,000 members.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
____________________________________

My comments: Once again John Kerry is caught lying to the American people. Apparently he has ignored his mother's advice from her deathbead. It's about INTEGRITY John, you told us that, but then you were probably lying about that as well.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 19, 2004 07:10 PM

Jim Rodkey:

Your use of the word "landslide" in Florida was nonsensical. Sorry...

Posted by: JM at October 19, 2004 07:45 PM

The Kerry camp is trying to scare people about the stem cell issue. Spinal cord injuries are not even close to being the biggest concern for the medical community. We should be more concerned with doing research on communicable diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis, and diseases that kill a lot of people routinely, such as heart disease and cancer.

I wanted to clear up a few things about stem cells. I have personally done work with human cells, tissues, and organs, and am very familiar with how cells are used in medical research.

There is a very subtle distinction between Bush and Kerry's positions on stem cell research.

Kerry and Edwards have exploited this politically because most people do not know much about the issue. In fact, using the term "stem cells" is a huge misnomer. They should always say "embryonic stem cells" and they should always refer to "federal funding". I have also heard the term "ban", which is not at all appropriate and is in fact entirely misleading.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry on stem cells is in the FEDERAL funding of the FUTURE DESTRUCTION of NEW HUMAN EMBRYOS for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

This is an important distinction because it means that:

A) Private and state dollars are still available for all stem cell research, INCLUDING embryonic stem cell research. The vast majority of research funding comes from private and state sources. Most research organizations are private corporations, funded by investors and entrepeneurs. Another huge chunk comes from state and private funding in the form of colleges and universities, which typically engage in scaled-back, but cutting-edge research. Often this research is done in collaboration with private companies, to whom they license their technological advances. This is why we have the most technologically advanced health care system in the world.

B) Research on adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells still receive federal funding and will continue throughout the future NIH budgets. These types of stem cells, like embryonic stem cells, can become any type of human cell if induced with the right chemical stimulus. Private, state, and federal funding is already being used to develop therapies using these stem cell lines.

C) Since the ban on funding only applies to the future destruction of embryos, the current embryonic stem cell lines can and in fact are being used for research using FEDERAL dollars. Many embryonic stem cell lines exist and are available and can be used for federally funded research.

Here is a link for more information: http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp

Notice that at the bottom of the NIH page there are links directly to the sources of these stem cell lines. If you have a license, you too can do your own embryonic stem cell research. If you have a novel approach, you can even get federal funding in the form of a grant.

I think it's important that everyone understands the exact issue here. There is no ban on stem cell research. Stem cell research is advancing, and in fact the current limitation on the research is in itself limited and full of loopholes.

Also, stem cells are a tiny part of medical research. Other methods are being used to do research on nerve diseases and paraplegia.

There's a real debate already about whether or not artificial nerves will be superior to implanted or grafted human nerves. Just like you can now get an artificial hip or an artificial heart, in the near future you may be able to have your spinal cord wired back to itself or out to one of your limbs in order to restore feeling and control. Insted of using human nerve tissue, doctors will use wires and circuits. It sounds like science fiction, but it's a real possibility and most would say a real probability.

Let's not move towards socialism when it comes to our health care system. Private concerns drive medical research, and we should preserve the American way.

For those who already read this when I posted it on the other board, I apologize.

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 19, 2004 09:13 PM

Wake Up America!
By Jacques Julliard
Le Nouvel Observateur

Monday 18 October 2004
http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/etranger/20041018.OBS9354.html

http://nouvelobs.reverso.net/url/obsResult.asp?directions=65544&template=Default&autotranslate=1&url=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/etranger/20041018.OBS9354.html

George W. Bush is now naked, but most Americans don't see it: an invisible film separates them from reality.
The United States today has a problem with reality. That is the dominant impression I bring back from a three week trip across the country. It's as though a thin membrane, an invisible film, comes between reality and a portion of the citizenry, making communication impossible. The facts have not disappeared because the film is transparent, but they have stopped exercising an influence on people's judgment. There's not an obfuscation of the truth; it's worse than that: there's an immunization to it. The Iraqi affair is exemplary. Today, apart from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, no one seriously contests the scope of the disaster, the growing isolation of the United States, the impossibility of an honorable withdrawal.

No one any longer denies the lack of preparation for an undertaking that nonetheless had been planned long in advance, the blind trust placed in an international crook wanted in several countries, Ahmed Chalabi, and then in former CIA agent Iyad Allawi. No one dares anymore to evoke the democratic contagion that was supposed to win over the whole region in the wake of the American offensive, still less, after Abu Ghraib, the humanitarian Messianism that was supposed to permeate the whole undertaking.

George W. Bush is naked. His three debates with John Kerry succeeded in undressing him. And yet, he is proof against reality. With the record I have just outlined, the polls continue to see him as the man best placed to finish off the Iraqi affair and protect the United States. The protection of the United States is the major theme of the campaign and demonstration of power the sovereign remedy. Is this war a disaster? Undoubtedly, but it has the merit of keeping the theatre of operations far from the United States...

Last week's publication of Chief American Inspector in Iraq Charles A. Duelfer's report threw a harsh light on this feeling of unreality that has invaded America.

The report shows that Saddam Hussein, hoping to escape from sanctions, had dismantled his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction right after 1991. Consequently, the sanctions were effective and the inspectors had been correct. Yes, but, Bush retorts, Saddam had undoubtedly not given up his intention of rebuilding such an arsenal, so we had to act quickly! It's in the name of reasoning like this that the outgoing president bold-facedly maintains the good grounds for his policy without suffering any loss in public opinion.

It's to describe just such a situation that "The New York Times" brilliant chronicler Paul Krugman recently (Oct. 10, 2004) evoked the Orwellian concept of "reality control". Reality is no longer a given that everyone must accept as a precondition to any analysis. It's one parameter among many for political action, a matter for appropriate treatment. In the same way, Krugman continues, Bush and his administration have succeeded in convincing a portion of the public that reducing taxes on the richest (about 1% of the population, according to Kerry) is in fact a populist measure designed to help small businesses and the middle class.

Thus, the introduction of methods that properly belong to totalitarian propaganda as described by Hannah Arendt into the heart of a democratic country is a great novelty here. It allows us to explain how a people viscerally attached to their freedoms remain numb overall to the Guant�namo or Abu Ghraib scandals, or to the police encroachments permitted by the "Patriot Act". Let us be neither Pharisees nor amnesiacs at the heart of another democratic country: France experienced a similar situation during the war with Algeria.

The failures of the American press and media during the Iraq war bear a large responsibility for this persistent bewitchment of a part of American public opinion, indifferent to the lessons of reality.

The "New York Review of Books", which has had an exemplary attitude during the whole period, recently published a collection entitled "Now They Tell Us" of articles by Michael Massing on the attitude of the best American newspapers during the war in Iraq. Thus it was that the "Washington Post" (which has corrected itself since) on the day after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations Security Council (February 5, 2003) - during which the whole world saw a hodgepodge of baloney - could title its editorial "Irrefutable!" Beyond any doubt, Thomas Jefferson's aphorism remains entirely timely: "If I had to choose between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government, I would choose the latter without hesitation."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Julliard is Executive Director of the Nouvel Observateur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.
-------

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 19, 2004 11:44 PM

You say, "I saw how abortion kills a human being and the soul of a woman," and I answer, "Perhaps but the woman still should have the final say regarding what she wants to do with her body and not the government." You still want the government to have the final word regarding this very personal and "private" matter and that's wrong.

You seem to want the government to make more laws that turns the things that people do into crimes and I'm against that. I think we have enough laws as it is and we have far too many people in prisons already. Why do you want to see more of our citizens in Prisons?

Your also say, "What about my parental rights? My daughter can get an abortion without my consent or knowledge." Well, depending on your daughter's age, it may not even be any of your business what she does. I won't say more regarding this issue because what you want is so obviously wrong and the government should never interfere into this very private matter.

You say, "The government has an obligation to protect our rights." What happened to our responsibilities? Isn't anything our responsibility? You need to remember that in the final analysis, "we the people" are the government in our country. We are responsible for what the government does just as we were responsible for George W. Bush's failure to take care that atrocities didn't happen in Vietnam and in Iraq as well. We failed our duty as citizens and we have to learn to admit it.

Finally, you say, "I am not asking them (the government) to ensure I have enough food on the table." Well, perhaps that's what you should be asking that whenever some catastrophic event happens that the government assume that responsibility to make sure that our citizens are taken care of. That's what our US Constitution requires of us and we should be up to the task. I didn't see the Floridians refuse our help when all those hurricanes struck there recently, did you?

Unbelievably you say, "I do not want a tax and spend liberal in the White House." Well, it turns out that's exactly what you have in the White House right now. Face it, if you didn't have that in the White House right now, you wouldn't be seeing the reckless deficit spending and tax breaks that George W. Bush has been doing and giving. It's still obvious to me that you're completely blind to our reality. Wake up and smell the coffee! It's obvious to me that you still haven't grown up.

Your CMBLHHPBR POST follows:

"Abel, I considered your arguments when I was a younger man. I saw the damage of liberal ideology. I saw how abortion kills a human being and the soul of a woman, in that case it is not a civil liberty it is a crime against humanity. There is a difference. I don't say homosexuality is illegal, I just say they, homosexuals should not be given special privileges or have the right to indoctrinate my kids in public school. What about my parental rights? My daughter can get an abortion without my consent or knowledge. The government has an obligation to protect our rights.
Now when I say "the people need to stop depending on the government and depend on the private sector" I am not asking them to ensure I have enough food on the table. That is my responsibility and it is not the role of the government. That is the ideological difference. I do not want a tax and spend liberal in the White House. So you see we just see things from a different perspective. Go through the projects sometime and see if the government social programs are working.
The so called powerful and wealthy are the private sector, they have just achieved more than you and I.
My problem is with one branch of government in particular, the judicial branch. Judges like the ones in Louisiana and California that overrule the will of the people.
Your side submits to special interests also, but they are not mine, Naral, planned parenthood, Glisten the Rainbow Push extortionists etc., etc.
The unions don't represent all. They represent some and they don't represent me."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 18, 2004 07:53 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 20, 2004 12:18 AM

To all Democrats, Im just wondering why North Carolina is not supporting their senator John "Golden Boy" Edwards. It seems that Bush has a pretty sizable margin of victory in this poll. I think he ought to go back to North Carolina for a couple of years and try to persuade his own state that he is presidential before he tries to persuade other states. At least Kerry is going to win his state. Lets see some of that good ole democratic drivel.

John Edwards cares more about his hair than he cares about America
Go to www.drudgereport.com and see the Video

Posted by: Mike NY at October 20, 2004 01:52 AM

Able,

That's the best you can do? Quote a French newspaper? Give me a break, the French hate us! They are envious of us! If you haven't been keeping up with the news, France has been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal. Give it up Able, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to credability. Quoting a French newspaper, what's next from you? Will you now quote from a newspaper from Cuba? Did you happen to read what Putin said about the Presidential race?

Posted by: David Lowery at October 20, 2004 08:26 AM

Abel,

I couldn't agree more with your last post. I can relate to it as these thoughts are thoughts that I have also had in the past couple of years. I was already jaded to an election that I really feel was "stolen" (sorry Bush supporters!) and I have never trusted Mr. Bush. This made me think in ways that I have not in the past (about former Presidents). I see all of the new "justifications" for the war. People have short memories and seem to forget what the FIRST reason was for this war. Bush will lose this election because: 1) The economy is not that great and there seems to be a big question mark as to what the economy holds for Americans in the near future. 2) President Bush has lied about the war in Iraq. I know people want to support a President in times of war. So do I! But, my conscious tells me that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. Our country's sense of security was jolted by September 11, 2001, under this current President. Where was our protection then? To cover the inadequacy that was exposed at that time, the President initiated a conflict with an admitedly despicable enemy, but for the wrong reasons. Now he has resorted to lying about it (changing the reasons for the war is a subtle lie!) Now we are in a mess in two countries (Afganistan AND Iraq), not just ONE! And the cost has sky-rocketed! We Americans were led to believe that things were a certain way and they were not! I think it is the right thing to change course when things are not going as planned. That is what a GOOD leader would do; not stubbornly stick to what HE wants us to believe. Sorry Mr. Bush, but not all of us fall for your deceptions.

Posted by: JM at October 20, 2004 09:26 AM

To everyone who questioned the vote counting in Florida: I stumbled on this paragraph today. It is one reason why some people MAY have "spoiled" their ballots. Now, I for one, do not know what I would have done in this situation. I probably would have realized that I had already voted for the candidate on the previous page. But for those who actually followed the directions on the ballot, I can understand why there were double votes for a particular position. I also understand that some of the people were Democrats and some were Republicans. Each intended to vote for either the Democrat or Republican, but their vote was not counted because of the "over" vote.
The gist of what I want to say about this is that the United States should not have this type of situation, EVER! Voting is too important an act to have it not taken seriously. A fair election is more important to me than who wins the election. I hope that we do not have similar situations in the election of 2004.

Here is the paragraph concerning ballots in Florida's Duval county:

In the 2000 presidential election, 27,000 votes were tossed because of misleading instructions on a punch-card ballot. On the presidential ballot, voters were told to choose one person on every page. The presidential ballot, however, took two pages. If a voter followed instructions, the vote was tossed out as an overvote.

Posted by: JM at October 20, 2004 09:44 AM

Abel,

Anything coming for the French is laughable,

The statement "Last week's publication of Chief American Inspector in Iraq Charles A. Duelfer's report threw a harsh light on this feeling of unreality that has invaded America. The report shows that Saddam Hussein, hoping to escape from sanctions, had dismantled his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction right after 1991. Consequently, the sanctions were effective and the inspectors had been correct. Yes, but, Bush retorts, Saddam had undoubtedly not given up his intention of rebuilding such an arsenal, so we had to act quickly! It's in the name of reasoning like this that the outgoing president bold-facedly maintains the good grounds for his policy without suffering any loss in public opinion." is an outright falsehood.

Duelfer's report said, "Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
� Saddam totally dominated the Regime�s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community.
Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on
strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq�s strategic policy.
� Saddam�s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections�to gain support for lifting sanctions�with his intention to preserve Iraq�s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any
WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

Now This is straight from the report. Go to the source. Stop with the propaganda.

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 20, 2004 10:01 AM

JM,

I'll tell you just like I told Able. Go back and read the President's speech. Don't listen to the talking heads who tell you what he said, go back and read it again. There are no "new justifications" as you claim. The President spelled it out clearly. He did not say that Saddam was an imminent threat-John Edwards said that at the time. He did not say that Saddam intended to use the weaponfs against us-John Kerry said that at the time. There's to many people who are listening only to the talking points and not doing any homework on their own. You can read it for yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html.

You can blame the President if you want for the attack on Septemeber 11 but independant commissions who had access to information we will never see don't agree with you. It wasn't the failed policies of a President who had been in office for 8 months. It was a failure of plicy that had been going on in this country for years, both by democrats and republicans alike. Clinton cut back defense spending and put up a wall in the intelligence gathering communities and the people weren't getting the information to where it had to go BECAUSE IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW. The President changed that.

The only deceptions you have fallen for are coming from the mouths of those spouting the talking points. Read the speech-it doesn't say what Kerry, Edwards or any of the other Domecratic talking heads say it does nor what Able has been saying.

Here's the imminent threat quote:
I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. - John Edwards, on CNN Late Edition, Febuary 24, 2002

Here's some John Kerry quotes:
"[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I�ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News� "The O�Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
"I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn�t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It�s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN�s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)
"...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)
"...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

Now it's your turn. Give me the quotes and the sources to back up the things you say the President said. Show me the quotes where he mislead the country and lied about going to war.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 20, 2004 01:51 PM

Able,

You said, "Perhaps but the woman still should have the final say regarding what she wants to do with her body and not the government."

So I guess if someone wants to commit suicide

the government should not have a say it? It's

their body, not the governments, right? Let me

say this, and this is the fundamental difference

between pro-life and pro-abortion, it's not a

choice it's a babies life, I, and more then

likely most everyone else, believe that life

precious, especially a life that does not have a

voice to protest their murder. Before you start

spouting off about the death penalty, the

difference is quite obvious, a person put to

death has committed 1st degree murder, a baby

has done nothing wrong. If it is a unwanted

pregnancy, then mother has done something wrong

by getting pregnant, there are a lot of forms of

birth control. Planed Parenthood will provide

free birth control to those that can't afford

it. Please stop killing babies because you are

either too stupid to use BC, or you are too lazy

to use BC.

Posted by: David Lowery at October 20, 2004 03:46 PM

JM,
concerning the Florida votes that were tossed out, it was a democrat that told the people to punch the ballots that way. I don't know what else to say to you.

Posted by: Wayne at October 20, 2004 04:33 PM

Abel,

Abortion is the killing of an innocent life. That is everyone's business. You and I will never agree on that obviosly, but the personal attacks keep coming from your side.

Secondly my parental rights are being violated by the current system. When my daughter is 18 she is then on her own.

We have a difference in opinion on the government's role. You want to be able to depend on the goverment for all of your needs and wants and I just want to make sure that they don't get in the way of my "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". However our founding fathers never intended for us to lose our moral compass. So now you need a history lesson.

George Washington in his farewell address:

Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity ,for reputation, for life, if the sense for religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts Of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Tis, substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular goverment.

Nowhere in the Bible does God give us the permission to kill and unborn child. Case closed.

You don't wnat a bunch of unecessary laws, then why in the world would you want them to control our healthcare, our welfare etc. Every time they set up a government program new laws ensue.

I received a substantial tax cut from Bush, you cannot disprove that Kerry has voted to increase taxes more times than not. Again I guess I need to remind you that we are in an economic recovery and nothing you can say can convince me that Bush's decisions have everything to do with the shortest recession in our nations history.

Lastly your final comment which was meant to insult me,Winston Churchill said is ironic and I will leave you with the words of Winston Churchill to back it up:

"If You're not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative in your thirties you have no brain.".

Good Night Abel

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 20, 2004 04:46 PM

All Bloggers-
Wayne had the idea of searching all the blogs for Abel's lies and posting them. I was so inspired I did the same concept but took it to a more sadistic level. In one place, over on the 'Bush Is Up In Election Results' blog, I have chronicled most of d.'s moronic comments from the swiftvets/911 blog. I've uncovered a goldmine. I call it 'Jonesies'. Y'all can do the same, but pick your own victim, and stick to one blog, so, for example, someone else can do d. on the bronze star blog, another on the Battleground blog. I will have to pick another person on each of the blogs. All I ask is that as you pick your victim, you can only stick to comments from that same blog. To keep it simple, post it over on the same blog I have, the Bush is up in election results, so we can all know where to look. Announce your choice over there also so we can keep track of who has who on each blog. My suggestion is your userid-victim-blog name, i.e., Dave- d.jones-swiftvet/911. I saw this on another site a few years ago and it was high comedy, to put it mildly.
d., revenge is encouraged... do mine on whatever blog you choose. I'd be honored. And that goes for anyone else.
Let the games begin!!

Posted by: Dave at October 20, 2004 05:20 PM

Dave,
Great idea!

Posted by: Wayne at October 20, 2004 07:08 PM

My person will be d.jones/battleground polls.

D.jones,
No disrespect is meant, feel free to post my statements as well. Do you remember which blog you posted about your studying the CBS documents and you have proven them to be real? That is the one I really wanted to do. Oh well, have fun.

Posted by: Wayne at October 20, 2004 07:29 PM

Make that d.jones/bush puts our national security at risk.

Posted by: Wayne at October 20, 2004 07:47 PM

That French author identified Paul Krugman as "brilliant", which is all you need to read in order to know that the article is invalid.

Krugman hates Bush, that much is certain. But I think that what Krugman hates about Bush has more to do with the way Bush looks and talks than it does with his policies.

Krugman is a sniveling guy who never liked the way he himself looked, so he takes it out on Bush. It is certainly not Bush's policy on terrorism that Krugman disagrees with.

How could he argue with Bush's record of no terrorist attacks in more than 3 years? That is enormous.

We must continue to be vigilant and continue to develop technology to protect our homeland, but it also means that we have to use tough law enforcement methods within our borders.

The Patriot Act was a great piece of legislation. Big Brother may be watching, but if you keep your nose clean and you're not doing anything wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about. Who cares about what library books you read?

Also, the United States has had a slow, but steadily growing economy after 9/11 with an unemployment rate of 5.4%. I cannot even imagine having the audacity to claim that our economy is a "mess" as I've heard it described. Home ownership is at the highest levels in history. The building of new homes is at historic levels. These are perhaps the most important economic indicators when it comes to the standard of living for the American people.

How can Krugman,a writer for the New York Times, fail to acknowledge these basic facts? If you are going to blame Bush for his mistakes, then you must also be fair about his successes.

Terrorism and the economy. These are rather large issues. These are rather large successes.

I think that Krugman has forgotten all about 9/11. He claims that after 9/11, Bush and his supporters split up the American people.

Who split up the country? Not flag-waving Americans who love their country and understood the new challenge of history after 9/11.

Everyone knows that the people who split up the country were Michael Moore and Hollywood loudmouths and a small group of super-liberals who love to hate common people like most of us. Shamefully, these elites have managed to brain-wash a great number of Americans into thinking that deposing the worst dictator in all of the Middle East was the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Moore and the other cultural elitists hate patriotism because they don't identify themselves as Americans, but rather "citizens of the world". In fact, all of us have been citizens of the world all along, but we as Americans try our best to defeat tyranny in order to have a world worth living in. It's sad, but Michael Moore has no loyalty to the country that gave him all of his freedom and opportunity.

Moore and his followers could have been born in Cuba where people are not allowed to question the government. The irony is that they love Castro and Cuba, and yet they would never be able to be themselves if they lived there.

That French piece sounds more like a poem than an article. Leave it to the French to not understand the culture and politics of The USA. Bush is naked...Give me a break.

Do they even have elections in France or does Chirac get to be president because his family makes the best cheese?

Posted by: ShoemakerM at October 20, 2004 11:10 PM

Mike in NY:

And what makes you think that George Bush had much experience before he became President? He was governor of Texas, for pete's sake. Big deal! A big state in need of a lot of improvement. You make me laugh.

Posted by: JM at October 20, 2004 11:24 PM

Sorry, Wayne and Dave, I don't have time to play petty blog games, I have to help a well Deserved man and his running mate become President and Vice President of the U.S. Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards. All Texans who want to send GW JR back to Texas, please follow the link and volunteer.

Dear D.,

No one knows better than a Texan that now is the time for change.

This is why we are asking you to volunteer now to reach undecided voters in crucial battleground states. In these final two weeks before the election, your efforts will make a huge difference on Election Day.

As a Texan, you have seen firsthand the deceitful tactics used by the other side in these final days before elections -- but we are countering with a grassroots movement larger than any other in history.

We need your voice. The Democratic Party has set up phonebanks in Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, Laredo and other cities. As more volunteers come on board in different cities, more phonebanks will be added. You can also offer to help with Get Out the Vote efforts, travel to a battleground state, or volunteer in other ways.

Let organizers know your availability by clicking the form below. They will contact you to confirm times and locations, the specific type of volunteering you would like to do, and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for everything that you do,

Texas for Kerry-Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 12:39 AM

Rgis letter was delivered on 18 October 2004. JOHN KERRY MUST GO

Hon. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of these United States:
Hon. Richard B. Cheney, President of the United States Senate:
Hon. William H. Frist, M.D., Majority Leader of the United States Senate:
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, United States House of Representatives:

On behalf of more than 180,000 Americans who have attached their names, including my own, hereto ("Petitioners"), I respectfully submit this request for investigation and indictment of Senator John Forbes Kerry (D. Mass.) for acts of treason in connection with the proffering of counsel and assistance to enemy agents in time of warfare ("Petition for Investigation and Indictment").

Specifically, Petitioners request the United States Department of Justice open or renew an investigation of Mr. Kerry's actions of "giving aid and comfort" to Communist North Vietnam, particularly in regard to his meetings with enemy agents in Paris on multiple occasions between 1970 and 1972 while still an officer in the United States Navy. Such counsel and assistance to enemy agents in time of warfare is in direct violation of UCMJ (Article 104 part 904), U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953) and other applicable laws and acts of Congress.

Some of Sen. Kerry's anti-American activities and protests in association with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and other subversive groups may have been subject to pardon by President James E. Carter's Executive Order 4483 of 21 January 1977, which provided general amnesty for draft evaders and other war protesters. However, it is the considered opinion of legal scholars that acts of treason in connection with providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of warfare are not covered by EO 4483.

Though Sen. Kerry claims to have received an Honorable Discharge at the conclusion of his military service, he refuses to sign a Standard Form 180 authorizing the release of his complete military records in an effort, we believe, to conceal his separation from the military by a Dishonorable Discharge or, at best, an other than honorable discharge. This assertion is supported by the fact that Sen. Kerry's discharge was subject to review after EO 4483 by a board of officers acting under Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 in reference to involuntary separation from the service. Those records are critical to the disposition of this Petition for Investigation and Indictment.

Additionally, in connection with a Dishonorable Discharge, the Department of Defense revokes all pay benefits, allowances, medals and honors. Here Petitioners note that upon becoming a U.S. senator in 1985, Mr. Kerry requested that all his medals be reissued, and, more recently, that he received a revised DD-214 listing an Honorable Discharge.

Why are we requesting that John Kerry be investigated and indicted now?

In October 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency; this has been especially true since his Democrat Presidential primary victory in March 2004. Outraged by this and in response, the more than 180,000 signatories of the above-referenced Petition for Investigation and Indictment chose to make Mr. Kerry's war record the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify him from public office.

In doing so, Petitioners cite the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3. The pertinent language states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Of note, there is no statute of limitations on treason.

It is not Petitioners' intent that this Petition for Investigation and Indictment be acted on prior to the 2 November election as this would be disruptive to the election process. Such action by the Justice Department would only be viewed as "political" in nature. It is, however, Petitioners' intent to ensure that Sen. Kerry's actions are subject to investigative review in order to conclusively determine whether he is legally qualified to hold any future office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

Regardless of the outcome of Sen. Kerry's campaign for president, be it known that Petitioners remain committed to holding Sen. Kerry accountable for his actions.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Alexander
Executive Editor and Publisher,
The Federalist Patriot

Petition and signature account attached.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 21, 2004 01:12 AM

Kerry Campaign Statement on Vice President Cheney Receiving a Flu Shot

Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesperson Phil Singer released the following statement today in response to reports that Vice President Cheney received a flu shot:

�Once again the Bush administration proves that it is the �Do As We Say, Not As We Do� White House. The very week that Secretary Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots. It is unfortunate that the Bush administration failed to do the work necessary to ensure that all Americans, including those most at risk, had been able to get shots as well.�

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 01:19 AM

REASONS TO VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS IN 2004 ELECTION!

BUSH CLAIMS � OF AL-QAEDA WIPED OUT, BUT ORGANIZATION RESURGING

� BUSH CLAIMED KERRY DID NOT THING WAR ON TERROR WAS A WAR � JUST PLAIN WRONG

� BUSH SAYS THAT KERRY SAID 9-11 HAD NOT CHANGED HIM, LEAVES OUT THAT KERRY WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN THESE ISSUES

� BUSH SAID THAT KERRY THINKS PURSUING TERRORISTS IS A DIVERSION, KERRY NEVER SAID THAT

� BUSH�S CLAIM ON KERRY RAISING TAXES WIDELY DEBUNKED BY MEDIA

� BUSH CLAIMS ON KERRY SPENDING OUTDONE BY HIS OWN SPENDING

� BUSH CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENT ON ACHIEVEMENT GAP, YET GAP HAS NOT CLOSED UNDER BUSH

� BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL HELP CHILDREN WITH HEALTH CARE, BUT LET FUNDING EXPIRE

� BUSH WRONG ON KERRY�S PLAN � 97% OF PEOPLE KEEP EXISTING HEALTH CARE PLAN

� BUSH WRONG ON KERRY HEALTH CARE PLAN � NO NEW MANDATES

� BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL KEEP THE PROMISE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT CUTS BENEFITS.

� BUSH WRONG IN SAYING JOHN KERRY IS THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR

� BUSH CLAIMS SUCCESS ON INTEL, BUT DRAGGED FEET ON REFORM.

BUSH MAKES EXCUSES ON THE ECONOMY, YET OTHER PRESIDENTS DID FINE WITH ADVERSITY. When I came into office, the stock market had been in serious decline for six months, and the American economy was sliding into a recession.

� Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George Bush Sr. All faced Wars And Managed To Create Jobs. Franklin Roosevelt led America toward victory in World War II, after recovering from a devastating attack upon Pearl Harbor. Yet Roosevelt still managed to create jobs: from 1941 until his death in 1945, FDR created 5,567,000 private sector jobs. Truman led the United States to victory over Japan in World War II, and acted to prevent Communist North Korea from taking over South Korea, yet he managed to create 6,452,000 private sector jobs during his term. LBJ committed the United States to the divisive war in Vietnam, yet managed to create 9,458,000 private sector jobs during his term. Nixon faced the Vietnam War, yet created 7,117,000 private sector jobs during his term.The first Bush�s recession lasted July 1990-March 1991. George H.W. Bush led a victorious world coalition against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Yet George H.W. Bush created 1,465,000 private sector jobs during his term. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; National Bureau of Economic Research]

BUSH CLAIMED SUCCESSFUL FARM ECONOMY, BUT FARM INCOME DOWN UNDER BUSH. Over the last three years, our economy has grown at the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation. (Applause.) The home ownership rate in America is at an all-time high. . In the past 13 months we've added more than 1.9 million new jobs. (Applause.) The unemployment rate in America is 5.4 percent, lower than the average rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. (Applause.) Farm income is up. This economy is moving forward, and we're not going to go back to the days of tax and spend. (Applause.)

� Farm Income is Down about $1,000. While Bush maintains that, �farm income is at an all-time high,� he is using old data. The USDA shows farm income is declining, forecasting that 2004 farm income is almost $1000 less than 2003. [Bush Remarks, 10/7/04; AmberWaves, Economic Research Service, USDA 9/04]

� 8 Million Americans Are Looking For Work. Unemployment has increased by 2 million since Bush took office and over 8 million are unemployed, looking for work. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

BUSH SAID HE HAS EXTENDED CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM, BUT HE IS NOT FUNDING THE PROGRAM.

� Bush Cheating Farmers Out of Funding for Land Conservation. �Under [the Conservation Reserve Program], farmers receive annual payments for taking land out of agricultural production for 10 to 15 years and establishing grass, tree or shrub cover on the land. Established as an erosion control program in 1985, the program has provided a tremendous boost for pheasants and other wildlife by providing habitat.� Farmers owning 4 million acres of land applied to CRP in 2003, and only 2 million acres were accepted. However, the program was budgeted for preserving 2.8 million acres of land. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/21/03]

BUSH SAYS HE HAS SUPPORTED BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY, YET U.S. LAGS IN BROADBAND

The United States Is Eleventh In the World in Broadband Adoption. The United States lags behind 10 other countries, including Korea, Canada and Taiwan. In 2001, the U.S. was fourth in broadband adoption. [Federal Communications Commission, �Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States: Fourth Report to Congress� 9/9/04; National Journal's Technology Daily, 10/24/01]

Bush Administration Content With Slow Pace of Adoption. �Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act directs both the Commission and the states to encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans on a reasonable and timely basis� Like the previous three reports, this Fourth Report concludes that the overall goal of section 706 is being met, and that advanced telecommunications capability is indeed being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis to all Americans.� [Federal Communications Commission, �Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States: Fourth Report to Congress,� 9/9/04]
Bush Doesn�t Just Set the Bar Low; He Puts The Bar �In The Ground.� �We have universal availability" already, he said, with satellite services. He said he's heard of setting an achievement bar low, but the Bush Administration "is putting it in the ground.� [Blair Levin, Washington Internet Daily, 9/20/04]

BUSH CLAIMS SUPPORT OF ETHANOL AND RENEWABLES, BUT CUT FUNDING

� Bush Cut Funding for Renewable Energy by $50 Million. Bush�s FY 2005 budget underfunds farm-based renewable energy, such as ethanol, biodiesel and windpower, by $50 million. These grants are used for developing businesses in rural areas, businesses which are often times ethanol plants. For the FY 2004 budget, Bush gutted �value-added� grants from $40 million in 2003 to $2 million for 2004, saying the administration had �other priorities.� [Office of House Democratic Leader, 2/12/04; Omaha World-Herald, 2/3/04; Des Moines Register, 2/12/03; Greenwire, 1/17/03]

� In 2000, Bush Blamed Ethanol for High Gas Prices. "In what is shaping up to be a close contest between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, [gas] prices that remain high could prove to be a pivotal factor in the election, analysts say....Bush and the Republicans, meanwhile, are blaming the Clinton administration's energy policy and myriad environmental regulations, including a mandate that requires a cleaner-burning blend of gas and corn-based ethanol in Midwest cities such as Chicago and Milwaukee." [Los Angeles Times, 6/24/00]

BUSH CLAIMED HE IS FIGHTING FOR WORKERS, BUT HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE TRADE LAWS.

� Bush�s Has Failed To Enforce Trade Laws And Fight For American Jobs. Bush has failed to enforce trade laws and represent US interests at the World Trade Organization. In fact, the Clinton Administration brought more cases to the WTO each year than the Bush Administration has brought in more than three years in office, bringing 65 cases total compared to 12 cases under Bush. Bush has also failed to take active steps to address China�s trade violations. A unanimous report to Congress by the bipartisan U.S.-China Commission found that the Administration had not taken active steps to address China�s currency manipulation or surges of textile imports. As a result, the trade deficit has hit a record $490 billion, our economy has hemorrhaged 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, exports are down for the first time since Herbert Hoover�s term in office, and foreign investment in the US has dropped 50 percent between 2001 and 2003. [BEA & Census, Treasury; U.S. China Commission Report to Congress, June 2004; BEA; BLS]

� The Bush Administration Has Failed To Address China�s Unfair Trade Practices Despite The Lost of 2.7 Million Manufacturing Jobs and A Growing Trade Deficit. In 2003, the US-China trade deficit reached a record $124 billion and the total number of manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 topped 2.7 million. Yet the Bush Administration waited until election year to take token action to enforce trade laws. In 2001, 2002, and again in 2003, the administration took only limited and partial action against China, and waited until March 2004 to file its first WTO case against China. Each year of inaction has sent the wrong message to China in the critical first three years of its WTO membership. In fact, a unanimous report to Congress by the bipartisan U.S.-China Commission found that the Administration had not taken active steps to address China�s currency manipulation or surges of textile imports. [Freeman, Charles. �Testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, February 2004; US Census Bureau; U.S. China Commission Report to Congress, June 2004]

BUSH�S CLAIM ON KERRY RAISING TAXES WIDELY DEBUNKED BY MEDIA

� Attack Widely Debunked By Media, Far From Truth Of Kerry�s Record: �Dubious Claim,� �Wrongly Claimed,� �Iffy,� �Misleading,� �Exaggeration,� �Padded,� �Baffling,� �Questionable,� and �Inflated� are just some of the phrases newspapers and independent analysts have used to describe this bogus charge. The truth? Kerry has gone on the legislative record over 640 times for lower taxes. [Factcheck.org, 9/17/04; AP, 10/6/04; NBC Nightly News, 10/5/04; Knight Ridder, 10/9/04, Washington Post, 9/26/04, LA Times, 10/9/04, CNN.com, USA Today, 10/8/04; Congressional Quarterly Votes; CQ�s Congress And The Nation; CQ Almanacs; Senate Republican Policy Committee Vote Analysis; Congressional Research Service Bill Summaries (via thomas.loc.gov), bill texts (via thomas.loc.gov)]

� George W. Bush has Never Proposed Repealing the Social Security Tax Increase Despite $2.5 Trillion in Tax Cuts and When John Kerry Voted to Do So, Republicans Blocked the Effort. Despite pushing for $2.5 trillion in tax cuts, George W. Bush has never proposed repealing the increase. His failure to lead has shaved 10 years off the life expectancy of Medicare. Just last year, John Kerry voted for an amendment to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits, cutting taxes by $1,500 for nearly 8 million seniors but Republicans more interested in tax cuts for the wealthy killed the proposal 49-51. [Vote #149, 5/15/03; Grand Forks Herald, 5/15/03; Congressional Budget Office]

� Dick Cheney Voted to Raise Social Security Taxes. In 1983, Cheney voted for the Social Security Amendments of 1983. The legislation taxed Social Security benefits, increased taxes for those who are self-employed and increased Social Security payroll taxes. [1983 CQ Almanac p. 219; vote #43, 18-H; HR 1900; tax descriptions from the 1983 Congressional Quarterly Almanac]

BUSH CLAIMS ON KERRY SPENDING OUTDONE BY HIS OWN SPENDING

� Bush Plans Would Cost $3 Trillion �Bush, making his case that Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal, charged that he has promised more than $2.2 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. Kerry has disputed that estimate, and Bush's own tax-cut proposals and plan to create private Social Security accounts -- and his spending proposals -- would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, according to administration figures.� [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

BUSH ATTACKS RICH WHO USE LOOPHOLES, YET HE DOES NOT CRACKDOWN ON THE PRACTICE

� Part Of The Reason Rich Get Out Of Taxes Is Because George Bush Refuses To Crack Down On Tax Loopholes And Offshore Tax Havens. George Bush has consistently defended tax breaks for companies that ship jobs and profits overseas, resisting bipartisan Senate legislation to close a loophole that allows companies to move their headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. And Bush has even pushed for more tax breaks for companies that export our jobs � to be paid for by raising taxes on companies that export our products and create jobs in America.

� Independent Studies Confirm The United States Loses At Least $40 Billion In Annual Revenue, And Losses Accelerating Under Bush. A GAO report documented $20 to $40 billion annually is lost to abusive offshore schemes that are illegal yet barely addressed by the Internal Revenue Service. One tax expert �conservatively� estimates revenue losses accelerating by �$10 billion and perhaps as much as $20 billion annually� from the increased off-shoring of income under the Bush administration. [Martin Sullivan, �Shifting of Profits Offshore Costs U.S. Treasury $10 Billion or More,� Tax Notes, 9/27/04] [GAO, �Enhanced Efforts to Combat Abusive Tax Schemes � Challenges Remain,� 4/11/02]

BUSH NOT KEEPING HIS PROMISE ON EDUCATION

Bush Broke His Promise to Leave No Child Behind�By More Than $27 Billion. Bush said �the resources will be there,� and even Rod Paige said Bush �promised to provide the resources to make this law work.� Bush�s last four budgets have cumulatively provided $27 billion less than what was pledged under NCLB. [Contra Costa Times, 525/03; Rod Paige, Back-to-School Address, National Press Club, 9/24/04; budget data at www.ed.gov]
States Burdened by Increased Costs. �The Bush administration nearly capsized the law when it gave the cash-short states new educational burdens without providing the money it had promised.� A September GAO report found that the Department of Education has failed to give schools the guidance they need to meet the goals of NCLB. The National Governors Association voted unanimously to label No Child Left Behind an unfunded mandate. Ohio estimated that NCLB would cost $149 million per year. Utah estimated that NCLB would cost $18 million per year to implement, while the state currently receives $2.2 million per year in federal funding. The state of Tennessee found that it would need to spend $1 billion more per year�a 20 percent increase�than it currently does to meet NCLB requirements. The GAO found that the law�s testing requirements alone are underfunded by $3 billion. That�s a broken promise. [NYT, 10/10/04; GAO, 9/30/04; WSJ, 2/23/04; National Conference of State Legislatures; FactCheck, 5/12/04; AP, 10/18/04; GAO, May 2003]
Kerry Addresses Drop Out Crisis�Bush Does Nothing. While thirty percent of American high school students drop out�including almost half of African-American and Hispanic students�Bush allows schools to �push out� low performing students through lax reporting requirements. Kerry believes the way to increase graduation rates is not to lower expectations, but to make sure students

BUSH CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENT ON ACHIEVEMENT GAP, YET GAP HAS NOT CLOSED UNDER BUSH

� Nationwide Achievement Gaps in Reading Have Not Closed Since NCLB. Although many groups began to close the achievement gap from 1998 to 2002, there is no nationwide evidence that the gaps in reading have closed after No Child Left Behind. In fact in 2003, the Nation's Report Card shows that in grade 4, the gap between white and African American students grew slightly larger, while the achievement gap for

� Hispanics was unchanged. In grade 8, the gap between white and Hispanic students grew slightly larger while the achievement gap for African Americans was unchanged. [National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress]

� Bush Exaggerates Evidence of Minority Gains. "There is fragmentary data to support Bush's claim that the additional federal dollars to schools and the new accountability standards have helped minority students improve their test scores relative to white students, but education specialists agree there is not yet enough evidence to declare the act a nationwide success. Besides, the 'achievement gap' has been getting narrower for roughly the past decade, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program in Education Policy and Governance at Harvard's Kennedy School." [Boston Globe, 9/24/04]

BUSH CLAIMS TO BE SUPPORTING RURAL HEALTH CARE, YET SHORTCHANGES RURAL STATES

� George Bush Continues to Shortchange Rural States When it Comes to Medicare. Americans living in rural areas and small towns pay the same premiums and deductibles for hospital stays and doctor�s visits, yet the doctors and hospitals that care for them are shortchanged. For example, the per-beneficiary reimbursement in Louisiana is $7,200. In New York City, it�s $8,000 and in Miami, it�s $9,200. In Iowa, it�s $4,033; in Wisconsin, it�s $4,200; in Minnesota, it�s $4,296 -- all less than national average in Medicare dollars per beneficiary, which is $5,360. [CMS; Super, Nora. The Geography of Medicare: Explaining Differences in Payments and Costs. National Health Policy Forum Issue Brief, Number 792, July 3, 2003.; Kaiser Family Foundation, 50 State-Comparison Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary, 1998; Iowa Medical Society]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL HELP CHILDREN WITH HEALTH CARE, BUT LET FUNDING EXPIRE

� Bush Is Letting $1.1 Billion in for Children�s Health Insurance Coverage Expire. According to USA Today, �Unless Congress acts and President Bush relents in the next week, states will have to return more than $1 billion in money intended to pay for health insurance for children from low-income families.� On September 30, 2004, nearly $1.1 billion in federal funds for the SCHIP program expires and go back to the federal Treasury. These are unspent SCHIP funds originally allocated to the states in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Because it took time for states to implement their SCHIP programs, Congress extended the availability of these funds for covering uninsured children in both 2000 and 2003. This year�s Bush Administration budget would do nothing to save the $1.1 billion in federal SCHIP funds from expiring at the end of this month. According to an analysis by Families USA, the $1.1 billion expected to revert back to the Treasury Department �approximate the annual cost of providing health coverage for almost 750,000 uninsured children�.The loss of approximately $1.1 billion in federal SCHIP funds�occurring at the same time that states are experiencing severe fiscal shortfalls�will have a direct, negative impact on states� abilities to provide health coverage for low-income children.� [USA Today, 9/24/04; Congressional Budget Office, 3/3/04; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/31/04; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/4/02; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/3/03; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/2/04;

BUSH CLAIMED SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, BUT IS CUTTING FUNDING

� Bush is Pushing to Reduce Federal Medicaid Funding By Over $20 Billion That is Crucial to Community Health Centers. Bush�s latest budget reduces federal reimbursements for Medicaid administrative costs and reduces the federal match for Medicaid information and claims management systems, resulting in a $23.6 billion reduction in Medicaid spending over the next decade. By limiting intergovernmental transfers and federal reimbursements to the actual cost of care for public health providers, these �integrity initiatives� would decrease Medicaid spending $9.6 billion over the next five years alone. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/6/04, www.house.gov/budget_democrats]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL LOWER HEALTH CARE, BUT PLAN RAISES COSTS

� AHPs Could Raise Premiums for 4 out of 5 Small Businesses. Studies show that AHPs will increase the cost of insurance for many small businesses and will increase the number of uninsured. The CBO estimated that AHPs could raise premiums for 4 out of 5 small businesses that keep traditional insurance. [CBO, "Increasing Small-Firm Health Insurance Coverage through Association Health Plans and HealthMarts," January 2000.]

� Opponents of AHPs Include Range of Groups Including the National Governors Association, American Diabetes Association, National Council of La Raza, and 41 State Attorneys General. Over 470 local and national groups including the National Governors Association, 41 state attorneys general, American Diabetes Association and National Council of La Raza oppose the legislation from consumers groups to state officials to insurance groups to physicians to local chambers of commerce to labor groups. [http://www.sbhealthequity.org/uploads/master_list.pdf.]

BUSH WRONG ON KERRY�S PLAN � 97% OF PEOPLE KEEP EXISTING HEALTH CARE PLAN

� One Study Bush Campaign Cites Shows 97% of Americans Keep Existing Health Plans. �Lewin's vice president John Sheils told FactCheck.org that his computer model projects that only 8.2 million (of the 243 million who currently have private or government health insurance) would change their insurance plans under Kerry's plan.� [FactCheck.org, 10/4/04]

BUSH WRONG ON KERRY HEALTH CARE PLAN � NO NEW MANDATES

� Washington Post: �No Employer Mandates� Under the Kerry Health Plan. Under the Kerry-Edwards health care plan, no employer is required to participate. Employers are not required to cover every employee, and employers can choose to maintain their existing coverage. According to the Washington Post: �What's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer mandates, no price controls, no premium caps.� [www.johnkerry.com; Washington Post editorial, 9/16/04]

� �New Mandates� Taken from Existing Federal System Bush Praised Last Year. The Bush-Cheney campaign takes their count of so-called new mandates primarily from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) � an existing system that George W. Bush himself praised last year: �Medicare need[s] to have a choice of affordable plans, all of which provide prescription drug benefits. Every federal employee, including every member of Congress, gets to choose the health coverage that best fits their needs. If it's good enough for the employees and the members of Congress to have choice, it's good enough for our seniors to have choice when it comes to health care plans, as well.� [Levinson and Tozzi, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, The Business-Specific Elements of the Proposed Kerry-Edwards Health Plan, 10/04, pg. 11; Bush Remarks on Medicare (New Britain, CT), 6/12/03]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL KEEP THE PROMISE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT CUTS BENEFITS.

� Bush�s Plan Will Eliminate Benefits for Seniors. According to CBO, the President�s plan �would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs under CSSS Plan 2 are included� For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.� [CBO, �Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President�s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,� 7/21/2004, pp. 11 and Figure 2A]

BUSH WRONG IN SAYING JOHN KERRY IS THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR

� Liberal Ratings Create �Misleading Impressions�. Republicans have used ratings by National Journal and the ADA to call Kerry the most liberal senator. But even the groups themselves deem that the ratings can be distorted. �These organizations warn that their liberalism indexes can, for a variety of reasons, create misleading impressions.�[Washington Post, 7-19-04]

DESPITE RHETORIC, BUSH HAS FAILED ON HOMELAND SECURITY

� Bush�s Failed �Commitment� To Homeland Security Lacks Resources and Strategy. Since 9/11, Bush has opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, failed to secure the nation�s ports and borders, properly screen air and sea cargo, or create a unified terror watch list. Today, only 5 percent of the cargo coming into the nation�s ports is physically inspected, less than 5% of air cargo goes unscreened for explosives, and only one border agent is available per every 5 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. What�s more, Bush�s 2005 budget has cut funding for first responder training by nearly half, cut port security grants, and he has plans to cut DHS funding by $1 billion in his 2006 budget. [National Journal, 6/5/02; www.omb.gov
BUSH CALIMS SUCCESS ON INTEL, BUT DRAGGED FEET ON REFORM.

� Bush Dragging Feet On Intel Reform. 9-11 Commission Chairman Kean said, �I would certainly urge the president to do everything in his power to get a final bill to his desk before the election� I would hope that he would urge his friends in Congress to act,� Mr. Kean said of the president. �I will reach out to the White House to urge them to do everything they can.� [NYT, 10/15/04]

� Bush Stonewalled The Independent 9-11 Commission At Every Possible Turn. Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. He finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after �the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses.� Bush then fought the extension of the 9-11 Commission, and refused to provide it with the funding it needed. He subsequently tried to limit amount of time the commission would have to testimony from himself, and tried to prevent Condelezza Rice from having to testify under oath. [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02; [New York Times, 1/28/04; White House Press Briefing, 1/27/04, emphasis added; Washington Post, 3/27/03; Associated Press, 2/28/04; 3/9/04; Washington Post, 3/26/04]

� America still Vulnerable Because Bush Has Failed to Finish Integrating Terrorist Watch Lists. According to news accounts, the terrorist aviation list only includes those who are a danger to aviation. �Now, in a report obtained by NBC News, a government watchdog warns the problem is still not fixed. The "No-fly" list still includes only suspected terrorists "who pose threats to civil aviation" - not all suspected terrorists. "It's just plain wrong," says 9/11 commissioner Slade Gorton. "The potential consequences are that terrorists can still get on aircraft in the United States," says Gorton.� On 9/11, only a dozen names were on the "No-fly" list. Now there are about 3,500. But that�s only a fraction of more than 300,000 names on the government's main list of suspected terrorists and associates...."They could be couriers or they could be operatives or they could be suicide bombers. It doesn't matter. You have to keep them all off," says terrorism expert and NBC News analyst Roger Cressey." [MSNBC, �No-fly� list still lacking, 9/23/04 � citing Department of Homeland Security - Office of Inspector General. "DHS Challenges in Consolidating Terrorist Watch List Information." OIG-04-31. August 2004]

BUSH CLAIMS STRATEGY IN WAR ON TERROR IS WORKING, BUT AL-QAEDA RESURGING.

� Bush Not Facing Reality that Taliban And Al Qaeda Are Resurging, Country Is Reverting to a Terrorist Breeding Ground: According to the operational commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, the �Taliban has regrouped and sustained an insurgency across the south and east of the country� and is supported by foreign fighters. The New York Times reported that �new evidence suggests that [al Qaeda] is regenerating and bringing in new blood.� �Relatively high ranking� members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been holding a series of meetings in Pakistan for discussions on how to disrupt the October elections, according to the U.S. military. And the United Nations warns that Afghanistan is on the brink of again becoming a terrorist breeding ground. [Associated Press, 9/11/04; 9/20/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; United Nations Development Report, 3/30/04]

� 9-11 Commission: Bush Administration Has Failed To Combat Terrorist Financing And Coordinate Counterterrorism Efforts. �The report reserved the bulk of its criticism for the government's performance before Sept. 11, 2001. But it was also critical of several high-profile Bush initiatives adopted since the attacks to try to combat terrorist financing and to coordinate counterterrorism. Specifically, it questioned the effectiveness of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a repository of specialists from the FBI, CIA and Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. The report found the center and counterterrorism units of each of the agencies were duplicating work and spreading such assets as analysts and translators too thin. The report also criticizes U.S. efforts to halt terrorist financing since the attacks. The commission found that efforts to designate terrorist financiers and freeze their assets, in the United States and through the United Nations, have been ineffective. The intelligence agencies have had trouble linking individuals directly to terrorist groups, and the administration has had difficulty persuading foreign countries to fully cooperate, it said.� [The Baltimore Sun July 23, 2004]

� Libya�s Decision To Disarm Preceded The Bush Administration And War In Iraq. According to Tony Blair, Libya first approached the US and Britain regarding its weapons question as the Iraq war approached. Blair said, �Libya came to us in March [2003] following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner.� The son of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi dismissed any link in his father�s decision to the war in Iraq or the capture of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Saif Al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN that �the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant� to Libya�s announcement. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment believes that Libya�s decision �goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime�[the] whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq.� [Washington Times, 12/20/03; CNN.com, 12/20/03]

BUSH CLAIMS � OF AL-QAEDA WIPED OUT, BUT ORGANIZATION RESURGING

� Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush�s claims over the past several months that �much of Al Qaeda�s leadership has been killed or captured,� new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan�s computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a �new generation of operatives�[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured.� According to intelligence analysts, �Al Qaeda�s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.� Al Qaeda is �more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.� Although several major leaders have been captured, �the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.� [Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]

BUSH CLAIMS THERE WILL BE ELECTIONS IN IRAQ, BUT MAY BYPASS MANY AREAS.

� Elections May Bypass Some Areas, Staff Not on the Ground. The United Nations is �unable to secure enough troops to protect a U.N. contingent headed to [Iraq] to help with elections and rebuilding.� Kofi Annan has only dispatched 35 U.N. election workers to Baghdad to help organize the Iraqi elections and the U.N is having trouble recruiting the needed 70,000 election workers since many Iraqis are too fearful to sign up, as insurgents are targeting Iraqis working with foreigners. Annan has warned that violence may threaten elections and he reported to the U.N. Security Council that �the security environment in Iraq had not improved much since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.� Due to the increasing violence, the E.U. decided not to send election monitors to Iraq, saying a decision to do so would be dangerous and foolhardy. �Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, operations chief of more than 150,000 mostly U.S. troops, said in an interview that there was a �contingency� plan to bypass Fallujah and perhaps other violent enclaves in the elections. Rumfeld told Congress that �If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it.� [Los Angeles Times, 7/21/04, 9/6/04; USA Today , 9/24/04; AP, 9/23/04; Reuters, 9/8/04; Boston Globe, 9/15/04]

BUSH�S ATTACK ON TROOP FUNDING MISSES FACTS

� John Kerry Voted to Fund Iraq�s Reconstruction Through Shared Sacrifice � Not a Blank Check for a Failed Policy. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war � without our allies, without properly equipping the troops, without a plan to win the peace � John Kerry supported a responsible plan to pay for George Bush�s $87 billion Iraq reconstruction plan, co-sponsoring and voting for an amendment to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for Iraq. The amendment failed, and the Bush administration still has no plan to win the peace or a way to pay the bill. �The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies,� Kerry said. �I am voting �no� on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.� [SA 1796, Kerry original cosponsor 10/1/03; Vote #373, 10/2/03; Vote #400, 10/17/03; Kerry statement, Congressional Record, 10/17/03]

� Military Leaders: George Bush Sent Troops To Iraq Without Proper Protection.

�Many members of Congress have expressed anger over Defense Department estimates that more than 40,000 troops, most notably Reserve and National Guard combat support units, were not outfitted with the new �Interceptor� body armor before deploying to Iraq.� [Stars and Stripes, 10/31/03]

�In reference to armored vests, there was a shortage. � This is a long-term problem that should have been fixed, however, well before the Iraq war started.� [Brigadier General David Grange (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

�I visited one of these units in December that was getting ready to deploy. That was December, they were deploying in January, and they were short basic equipment: radios, vests, armored Humvees, et cetera. We're better than that as a nation, and we're better than that as a military.� [General George A. Joulwan (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

�Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They were short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country � it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't.� [General Don Sheppherd (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

Could not �answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply.� [Gen. John Abizaid, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, in Washington Post, 10/4/03, emphasis added]

� White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion if Congress Made the Funds a Loan. George Bush repeatedly says on the campaign trail that �There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.� But �The White House threatened � to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. � �If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,� Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.� [Bush remarks, 9/13/04; New York Times, 10/22/03]

� White House Admitted It Did Not Need $87 Billion �Before the End of the Year.� Asked in a �background� conference call briefing whether the administration would be �okay� if Congress did not complete action on the $87 billion until just before it adjourned in December, an unnamed �senior administration official� said that �in terms of the need for the money, though, it does not arise before the end of the year.� Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer told Senate Democrats in late September that Congress�s initial $79 billion appropriation for Iraq would not run out until December 1, two months later. [Senior Administration Official, White House Background Briefing Conference Call on Supplemental Budget Request for Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/8/03; Durbin statement, Congressional Record, 9/24/03]

BUSH CLAIMED KERRY DID NOT THING WAR ON TERROR WAS A WAR � JUST PLAIN WRONG

� John Kerry Will Lead Using Military Action, Diplomacy, Law Enforcement, And All Available Tools And Resources In Our Arsenal to Win the War on Terror. �We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests. But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military � but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.� [John Kerry, 2/27/04]

� Bush Agrees With John Kerry: War on terror misnamed: �We actually misnamed the war on terror; it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.� [Bush Remarks, 8/6/04]

BUSH SAYS THAT KERRY SAID 9-11 HAD NOT CHANGED HIM, LEAVES OUT THAT KERRY WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN THESE ISSUES

� What Kerry really said about how 9-11 changed him � He Had Already Been On The Issue of Terrorism: �When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.'' [New York Times, 10/10/2004]

BUSH SAID THAT KERRY THINKS PURSUING TERRORISTS IS A DIVERSION, KERRY NEVER SAID THAT

� Kerry says Bush�s invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the pursuit of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi: �The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.� [John Kerry, 9/20/04]

� Gen. Tommy Franks: Resources Were Being Diverted To Iraq 14 Months Before The Invasion. In an excerpt read NBC�s �Meet the Press,� Senator Bob Graham said Gen. Tommy Franks told him in February 2002 that �his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost 14 months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan.� [AP, 9/5/04]

� Special Forces, Intelligence Personnel Pulled Out of Afghanistan to Support the Iraq War. In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. US Intelligence officials said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq. [USA Today, 3/29/04; KnightRidder, 9/5/03]

� New Report Shows War in Iraq is a Distraction from the War on Terror. A new report by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Israel's leading strategic think tank, concluded that the war in Iraq has become a distraction from the international war on terror. Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman �said that the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan.� And retired Israeli army general Shlomo Brom said the war in Iraq was �drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle against the occupiers. �On a strategic level as well as an operational level,� Brom concluded, �the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.�� [Associated Press, 10/11/04]

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 01:26 AM

MAKING SENSE OF 9/11

The PresiDunce has flipped many times explaining it. He told us the enemy wish to kill us because we are rich. Later it was because we are free, and again because we are a Democracy. None of these seem to make sense since these conditions were not new. These attacks should have occurred frequently in the past. Losing track of the flips the current one is the enemy has an ?ideology of hatred?.

The enemy is not defined clearly, other than they are ?terrorists? a word he has used ever so frequently! Terrorism is a method of offense that could be used by any combatant. Just what is this ?ideology of hatred?? No explanation given but as a result they killed about 3000 people that day.

To try to understand let us put on our ?ideology of hatred? cap and assume the authority and ability to execute the actions of the 9/11 attack. (Horrific, cruel, dastardly?true) Such brilliance! Super planning! Masterful execution! So intricate! What an achievement! With this record, killing of more Americans will be a breeze.

The entire country is so vulnerable. Where to start?

Start? With our ability to plan and to act, we just continue with 9/12 and 9/13 and on. With so many plans in place calendar dates become meaningless.

We pushed our ?ideology of hatred? on many people all over. (Must not be difficult to do as the President implies there is no shortage of the enemy, and even after killing and capturing so many there is no end of supply in sight.) The spread of the ?ideology of hatred? included the American continent. This made penetrating the American borders easy and assisted by those within.

Our people in place, the long Mexican border was so easy to penetrate. Our people walked through in batches with the Mexican illegal. The penetration of the extensive Canadian border was just as easy. With massive flow of people in both directions, it was easy for our people to go to Canada and bring in our troops. Both coastlines are so poorly guarded, sometimes we smuggled them in at night. Very often we went out in our boats, picked them up at sea and brought them in.

No arms or explosives were transported. Our coastline troops carried fishing gear and lot of beer and snacks.

Guns were easily purchased at Gun Shows. Our American base troops were able to purchase plenty on the open market. Buying from the non converted was easy. Years ago Americans sold guns to the Indians during the Indian wars. Underground factories produced an ample supply of explosives of a wide variety.

Our plans are numerous, too many to discuss but we will go over a few of them.

There are miles and miles of unguarded railway track. We will place explosives under the crossties and blow up thousands of trains. We will ride the trains and leave suitcases loaded with explosives on the luggage racks.

Lunch paper sacks filled with explosives will be places in tunnels, bridges, and subways and all over.

Most chemical plants are visible from the road or highway. We will fire rocket-propelled grenades into them. Hazardous chemicals will spew all over the population.

We will not bother trying to pass the checkpoints at stadiums. We will shoot rockets into them.

Our troops will randomly shoot Americans and blend into the population. They will be stationed all over the country.

This is a country rich in targets: water systems, power systems, food systems, various transportation systems and others. We have simple and effective plans for their destruction.

WAIT A MINUTE! WAIT A MINUTE!
IN FACT, WAIT THREE YEARS!
NONE OF THIS IS HAPPENING.

This explodes the hypothesis of the ?ideology of hatred?.

If the assumed enemy did not follow up on the 9/11 attacks, then our assumption of the enemy needs considerable explanation.

The 9/11 attacks were so spectacular. Was it intended to be a show? Who gained from it? One beneficiary is the President. The attacks have instilled such fear in the population they look to the President for protection and that gives him a big following. The President has exploited this condition he repeats ?terror?, ?war?, ?9/11? in almost every statement.

Another beneficiary: The Neocons that originated the documents of the Project on the New American Century could not sell their concept to President Clinton. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/ Now a part of the current administration their plan to invade Iraq has taken place. This plan without the attacks of 9/11 would have been almost impossible to sell to the American people.

Halliburton has been blatantly favored and other defense suppliers.

The Vice President threatens more attacks if we vote for a Democrat. Is he inciting fear or will he unleash it on us?

The President?s behavior after information of the attacks is astounding. Knowledge of his location was well known. He should have instantly fled the school and called for its evacuation. As Commander in Chief he should have instantly contacted and assembled the nation?s defense Chiefs. Instead he hung around for 27 minutes at the school. Did he know the extent and completion of the attack?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 01:52 AM

JM,

I agree, I thought the article made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, and it's really a shame that the Closed Minded Brainwashed Lying Hero Hating Pro-Bushite Republicans (CMBLHHPBRs) are blind so they cannot learn from reading it.

I know that you are still trying to educate them, I mean the CMBLHHPBRs, and I hope you won't be too frustrated when you fail. Take it from me, there's really no hope for them so, if I were you, I'd ignore them and continue posting for the benefit of the "undecideds" who visit our BLOG from time to time.

These undecideds are just now becoming interested in our presidential election and the good thing is that they don't like George W. Bush but they still don't know anything about John Kerry so that's our job---to tell them about Kerry.

I'm still posting for these "undecideds" and hoping that I can get them to read and decide to go for John Kerry. Can you believe it, some may still decide to vote for Ralph Nader which is a huge mistake but what can we do? In any case, don't let these CMBLHHPBRs get you down. Try to ignore them---believe me, they are not worth an ounce of frustration.

Your POST follows:

"Abel, I couldn't agree more with your last post. I can relate to it as these thoughts are thoughts that I have also had in the past couple of years. I was already jaded to an election that I really feel was "stolen" (sorry Bush supporters!) and I have never trusted Mr. Bush. This made me think in ways that I have not in the past (about former Presidents). I see all of the new "justifications" for the war. People have short memories and seem to forget what the FIRST reason was for this war. Bush will lose this election because: 1) The economy is not that great and there seems to be a big question mark as to what the economy holds for Americans in the near future. 2) President Bush has lied about the war in Iraq. I know people want to support a President in times of war. So do I! But, my conscious tells me that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. Our country's sense of security was jolted by September 11, 2001, under this current President. Where was our protection then? To cover the inadequacy that was exposed at that time, the President initiated a conflict with an admitedly despicable enemy, but for the wrong reasons. Now he has resorted to lying about it (changing the reasons for the war is a subtle lie!) Now we are in a mess in two countries (Afganistan AND Iraq), not just ONE! And the cost has sky-rocketed! We Americans were led to believe that things were a certain way and they were not! I think it is the right thing to change course when things are not going as planned. That is what a GOOD leader would do; not stubbornly stick to what HE wants us to believe. Sorry Mr. Bush, but not all of us fall for your deceptions.
Posted by: JM at October 20, 2004 09:26 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 21, 2004 02:56 AM

D Jokes Cheney is in the high risk category just as Clinton is both have recieved the flu shor per CDC reccomendations So what is your point?? another petty comment from a losing canidates side.

Posted by: wpnsgy at October 21, 2004 12:54 PM

wpnsgy, Clinton was just released from sugery, there is nothing immediately wrong with Cheney other than greed! He could put of his shot until the high risk American people were covered first. What's your point? Who would have a better chance of recovering from the flu? The Vice President of the U.S. or a high risk elderly person living on social security. Gosh! Read a book!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 03:38 PM

AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat

October 21, 2004 02:12 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are locked in a tie for the popular vote, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters seem open to change in the White House - most disapprove of the president's performance at home and in Iraq - but still harbor doubts about making the switch.

Bush's strength continues to be in a perception by voters that he is the most qualified to protect the country, though his advantage has dwindled in recent weeks. Some 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track.

In the AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards got support from 49 percent of those who said they were likely to vote, and the Republican team of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney got 46 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Oct. 18-20 survey, released Thursday, included 976 likely voters.

A spate of other polls show the race tied or give Bush a slight lead nationwide. The presidency will go to whoever gets a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, a state-by-state chase that is just as close as national surveys.

Likely voters are divided on many levels:

- They are just as likely to back Democrats for Congress as Republicans, with a 47-46 split favoring Democrats. That is essentially a tie.

- Twenty-four percent say they have already voted or will cast ballots before Election Day. Those who voted early were just as likely to back Kerry as Bush.

- A third of likely voters have been contacted by a candidate, campaign or outside group seeking support. Twenty-three percent said they were urged to back Kerry and 21 percent said they were asked to support Bush, a sign that two massive get-out-the-vote campaigns have had equal success contacting voters.

Less than half, 47 percent, approve of Bush's job performance. A rating below 50 percent spells trouble for any incumbent, and Bush falls below that threshold on the economy, domestic affairs and handling Iraq.

In each case, Bush's approval numbers have held steady since the AP-Ipsos poll taken after the first presidential debate.

That Bush performance, roundly criticized on style and substance, helped lower the president's standing against Kerry from early September, when the incumbent led in the head-to-head matchup and had higher approval scores.

A majority, 51 percent, support the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terror. By 7 percentage points, they think he would protect the country better than Kerry. That is similar to the AP-Ipsos poll earlier in the month, but down from a 23-point advantage in March.

Voters are evenly split on who would do the best job on Iraq. They find the candidates equally honest and likable, but Bush is viewed as much more decisive.

By an 18-point margin, Kerry is seen as best suited to create jobs for workers.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards TO WIN!

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 04:06 PM

wpnsgy, I know you passed your RIF classes.

Attention Bloggers: Softvote's Presidential Blog does not allow profanity, indecent material or personal attacks. If you cannot be civil on this blog, your message will not be posted at all.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards The Rest Of The GOP Will. LOL

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 08:27 PM

John Edwards cares more about his hair than he cares about America
Go to www.drudgereport.com and see the Video

JM:You make me laugh.

Why thanks JM Im glad you got a chance to see the video. I too thought it was very funny,

Posted by: Mike NY at October 21, 2004 10:17 PM

d.jones,
Are you saying you are the moderator now? You are in charge of what makes it on this site?

Posted by: Wayne at October 21, 2004 10:59 PM

d.Jones

I stopped talking to you 3 weeks ago because of your nasty personal attacks. If you have changed your ways we can have a debate. I am Happy you have improved your rederic. Maybe now you will Vote for a trully nice man for President. Vote for G. W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Thanks.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 21, 2004 11:31 PM

No, I simply posted what the webmaster stated at the top of the site, and don't think its fair for my perfect name for wpn not to be posted but his comments against me are. Of course its a republican site. Darn, did you pass your RIF classes?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at October 21, 2004 11:49 PM

1) "John Kerry. In his 20 years in the Senate, he's been a standard-issue Massachusetts liberal, with a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 93 on their 0-100 scale. By contrast, the other Senator from the Bay State, Teddy Kennedy, has a lifetime rating of 88. "That makes Kennedy the conservative of the two," chortled Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie as he visited New Hampshire last week on an anti-Democratic strafing run." -- James Pinkerton, 1/26/04

2) "Speaking on a live local broadcast at a campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio in front of 300 people, Kerry blasted Bush for being an illegitimately elected president in 2000 when he was "selected" by the U.S. Supreme Court. When an elderly Democratic voter in the audience accused Vice President Dick Cheney of murdering women and children in Iraq for the sake of oil profits, Kerry responded by saying, "I know exactly where you're coming from." Kerry added, "I know where that anger comes from, I know where the frustration comes from." -- John Kerry, May 2004

3) John Kerry's official blog links to the Democratic Underground, a left-wing website with very popular forums that is often quoted from by conservative bloggers and radio hosts because it's such a cesspool of lunacy. If you're looking for people who think Americans are just as bad as Al-Qaeda, the US Gov't had Nick Berg killed, or just a little America trashing, there's no better place on the internet to go than the Democratic Underground. In fact, just to give you a better idea of what it's like, here's the #1 quote from The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2003...

"I realize that not every GI Joe was 100 percent behind President Bush going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing cr** nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.

The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts." -- Starpass

If John Kerry thinks it's appropriate to link a website where those sort of views are expressed, is he fit to be President?

4) Do you want to allow the United Nations to control where American troops are sent? John Kerry said he did...

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." -- John Kerry, 1970

5) Thanks to George Bush, we've backed away from the economy crushing Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty which would have prevented us from building a missile defense, and the International Criminal Court which could have put our military & government officials under threat of frivolous prosecution.

6) George Bush is a strong supporter of a Federal Marriage Amendment which is the only way to stop liberal judges from imposing gay marriage on the states against the wishes of the voters and State Legislatures.

7) If you believe it's important to increase funding for education, "President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 49% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001".

8) George Bush is a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement and signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban into effect.

9) A rudimentary nuclear missile defense system will for the first time go online later this year thanks to George Bush.

10) George Bush's five-year, $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the most significant strike against the spread of AIDS/HIV in the history of mankind.

11) "...Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 2 1/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "

"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."

Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.

..."The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me." -- More stories like this here

12) John Kerry missed 64% of his votes in the Senate last year and has missed more than 80% of them this year. If John Kerry isn't bothering to do the job he has, wouldn't it be a mistake to give him a promotion?

13) John Kerry claims to believe that life begins at conception. Yet, he voted against bills that would have banned partial birth abortion 6 times and he "also voted three times against bills requiring parental consent or notification for a minor to get an abortion. He also opposed making it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion." Kerry also usually receives a 100-percent rating from pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood while the National Right to Life Committee regularly scores him at 0-percent. (Source: Peter Kirasow)

14) "Kerry then went on to promise that the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would be given a ?path to citizenship? in his first 100 days in office." -- Matt Hayes at FOXNews describes a promise made by John Kerry in a speech at the national conference of the race identity group La Raza (The Race).

15) "The average middle-class family - which he defines as people in the middle-fifth of earners - would have paid an additional $1,933 in taxes this year if Kerry had prevailed on tax votes during the first Bush term. Over the next 10 years, that same family would pay an additional $15,440." -- The (Wheeling, WV) Intelligencer on May 18, 2004

16) John Kerry publicly supported a 50 cent tax increase on gasoline.

17) Kerry did, in fact, vote over 350 times for higher taxes.

18) When the going got tough, George Bush got going and fought tooth and nail to give tax relief to American families. He worked hard to end the marriage penalty, increased the size of the child tax credit, gave Americans their hard earned tax dollars back in the form of rebates, and saw to it that 92 million Americans got to keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money.

Most importantly, by taking the government's hand out of the American's people's pockets, George. W. Bush gave the American economy the stimulus it needed to grow and create jobs again.

19) We've had 10 straight months of job growth and over a million jobs have been created this year so far thanks to George Bush's tax cut

20) "The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration." -- Arnold Kling at Tech Central Station

21) Over the last nine months, the economy has been booming. In the 80s, the average GDP was +2.9%. In the 90s, the average GDP growth was 3.1%. Over the last three quarters, the average GDP growth of the economy has been a sizzling 5.4%.

22) "(M)any analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election." -- Associated Press, July 6, 2004

23) In Afghanistan, we were told going in that the war would be long, difficult, and perhaps even unwinnable. A lesser man than George Bush might have gotten weak kneed at the prospect of sending our troops into a "mountainous Vietnam" and found some sort of excuse not to go. But, not only did we take the fight to our enemies in Afghanistan, we bombed Al-Qaeda's camps, decimated the Taliban, drove them out of power in less than two months, and sent our enemies running to Pakistan and remote caves on the Afghan border, where they live even today as hunted men. This is even more impressive than it sounds since our defeatist press was crying "quagmire" & "Vietnam" as we bombed our enemies into oblivion.

24) "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy." -- John Kerry waffles on Democracy in Iraq, April 2004

25) Almost a year after we invaded Iraq, in an interview with Time, John Kerry still was not able to explain whether he was for the war in Iraq. Can we trust anyone that indecisive to be President?

Time: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?

Kerry: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to?because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.

Time: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm.

Kerry: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships.

Time: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?

Kerry: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.

Time: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?

Kerry: I didn't say that.

Time: I'm asking.

Kerry: I can't tell you.

Time: Might the war have been avoided?

Kerry: Yes.

Time: Through inspections?

Kerry: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible. I'm not going to tell you hypothetically when you've reached the point of exhaustion that you have to [use force] and your intelligence is good enough that it tells you you've reached that moment. But I can tell you this: I would have asked a lot of questions they didn't. I would have tried to do a lot of diplomacy they didn't. ...

Time: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

Kerry: If there are no weapons of mass destruction? and we may yet find some?then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

Time: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?

Kerry: No, I think you can still?wait, no. You can't?that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

26) As Larry Kudlow pointed out in a recent column,

"A new poll of Iraqis shows that 68 percent have confidence in the interim government, 73 percent approve of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and 84 percent approve of President Ghazi Yawar. Nearly 80 percent of Iraqis expect that the new government will ?make things better? for Iraq after the handover."

In January, the Iraqis are scheduled to have national elections. Iraq is steadily moving towards freedom and Democracy because of George Bush's planning and steady leadership.

27) So far, artillery shells containing mustard gas, sarin, & cyclosarin have been found in Iraq. Furthermore, former chief weapons inspector David Kay also pointed out that Iraq was "working to produce a (chemical) weapon using the poison ricin until the American invasion last March". Also, Kay noted in his interim report that the Iraqis planned to produce more weapons,

"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed.".

Thanks to George Bush, Saddam's WMD's, however many he had of them, aren't going to be a threat in the future.

28) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only. Going after them showed George Bush's leadership against the global scourge of terrorism.

29) In Iraq, we removed Saddam Hussein, an anti-American tyrant & sponsor of terrorism who started two wars of aggression in the region while he simultaneously raped, tortured, and butchered his own people with a zeal matched by few figures in modern history. Once the war began, the performance of our military was incomparable. Saddam's forces were defeated, scattered to the four winds in less than a month, even as the press, a week into the war, was again baying the dreaded "V word" loud and often. George Bush made it possible.

30) "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." -- John Kerry, April 18, 1971

31) "(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the Tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry's words quoted to them by their interrogators?" -- Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey

32) "John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?" -- John O'Neil in May, 2004

33) "Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said." -- Every commanding officer John Kerry had in Vietnam says he is unfit to be President

34) "The USA Patriot Act brought down the artificial wall separating law enforcement and intelligence officers and allowed them to talk to each other as they work to prevent future attacks." The Bush Administration's support of the Patriot Act has helped to make America safer from terrorist attacks.

35) Thanks to George Bush's diplomacy, Libya gave up its WMD program and a nuclear arms ring run by a Pakistani scientist has also been put out of business.

36) We smashed Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan, killed or captured more than 2/3rd's of Al-Qaeda's leadership, have blocked Al-Qaeda from attacking inside the US for more than 2 1/2 years, and according to the 9/11 commission, Al-Qaeda's funding has started to dry up,

"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.

...Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income."

Because of George Bush, we are slowly but surely winning the war on terrorism.

37) "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." -- Washington Times on Jan 30, 2004

38) "Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. ?[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane." -- RNC Research

39) Is this the picture (and yes, this is a real pic) of a man you can trust to lead the free world in the war against terrorism?

40) "In 1994, Kerry proposed an amendment to gut the Intelligence Budget by $6 billion across the board. The amendment cut $1 billion from FY 1994 and $5 billion for FY 1995 through 1998". -- RNC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

? copyright 2001-2004 John Hawkins
Design & Various Scripts by Nicole Baker
User Info
148 users online

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily News
U.S. President Bill Clinton Has Set His Sights On Becoming U.N. Secretary-General (This Would Be A Disaster)
George Tenet: Says CIA Made Errors, Called The War On Iraq "Wrong", Says US "Winning The War On Terror"
Andrea Mackris Talks About Her Sexual Harassment Case Against Bill O'Reilly
The Drudge Report Has Obtained O'Reilly Accuser Andrea Mackris' Financial Records Which Show A Combined Debt Of Nearly $100,000
Claim: Andrea Mackris ? The Producer Accusing Bill O'reilly Of Sexual Harassment In A $60 Million Suit ? Left Cnn And Returned To Fox News Channel With A Plan To Set O'Reilly Up, Say Insiders Who Worked With Her At Both News Channels
Vice President Dick Cheney Poked Fun At Sen. John Kerry's Goose Hunting Thursday, Arguing That The Image Of The Gun-Toting, Camouflaged Democrat Was An "October Disguise" That Masked His Voting Record Against Gun Rights
Reporters Pool Report On Kerry's Hunting Trip (This Is Funny)
The Company Commander Of A U.S. Army Reserve Unit Whose Soldiers Refused To Deliver Fuel Along A Dangerous Route In Iraq Has Been Relieved Of Her Duties
A Soldier From A U.S. Army Reserve Unit That Said It Would Not Deliver Fuel Along A Dangerous Route In Iraq Says He And Others Did Not Refuse Out Of Fear.
Voting Woes Arise Again For U.S. Troops Overseas
The Highest Ranking Soldier Charged In The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal Was Sentenced To Eight Years In Prison For Abusing Inmates At Abu Ghraib During A Court Martial Thursday In Baghdad.
The Guardian Yesterday Ran Up The White Flag And Called A Halt To "Operation Clark County", The Newspaper's Ambitious Scheme To Recruit Thousands Of Readers To Persuade American Voters In A Swing State To Kick Out President George W Bush In Next Month's Election
WAPO Poll: Bush 51% Vs. Kerry 45%
ABC Poll: Bush 51% Vs. Kerry 46%
Mason-Dixon Shows Bush Tied Or Ahead In Blue States
Fred Singer: Kyoto Is Unfair To U.S
Larry Elder: Media Gave Kerry A Pass During The Debates
An Interview With Daniel Flynn, Author of "Intellectual Morons"
Log Cabin GOP Political Director Unmasked As Former Edwards Campaign Operative
Bush Wins Teen Vote: Bush 55% Vs. Kerry 40%
The Kindness of a Stranger (Free WAPO

Posted by: Chris, OH at October 22, 2004 12:51 AM

I keep hearing that Bush lied. When? What did he say when he lied, which is a conscious decision to say one thing when he knew them to be different. Never happened! Quit trying to justify voting for Kerry by trumping up Bush's record of lying.

Had we not done anything about Saddam this election would be about a president who is supposed to protect us and has allowed a dictator with WMD to stay in power and you libs know it.

Posted by: John at October 22, 2004 10:11 AM

d.jones

Presidunce! How funny!

Now, a comment about the word "terrorist". They are throwing the word around the same way they throw the word "liberal" around. It is a scare tactic. Sure there are terrorist. They have existed through the ages. Our country needs a reliable Intelligence Agency as the frontline of any war against terrorism. We also need someone to be president who didn't initiate a war with another sovereign nation and then try to call it a war on terror. The war in Iraq was a war against a despicable leader, but not a war on terror. That only happened after the US destabilized the country and terrorist poured in from all over the Muslim world. Iraq was not Afganistan. NOW it is more like Afganistan and Americans are placed in danger in two countries, not one! Wake up America. Our president caused this situation! We needed to get Osama bin Laden in Afganistan first. Bin Laden is a hero because he is still alive! If he would have been exterminated, support for his ideas would have diminished. Bush flubbed this! Bush is trying to tell us that he has good judgement, but we see every day how his so-called "good" judgement has gotten America into a financial and military mess! Why reward him with re-election? It doesn't make any sense.

Oh wait... we Americans have become resigned to rewarding CEO's of failed businesses with big bonus packages. This concept is now being carried over to the BIG business of government. Let's reward the current President because he has made things worse for this country. Now I understand!

Posted by: JM at October 22, 2004 11:30 AM

d.jones:

I just want to thank you for your posts. I haven't had the time to read your very long post, but I intend to in the near future. Keep them coming. You find information that I haven't seen and I appreciate it.

Posted by: JM at October 22, 2004 11:38 AM

Texas Republican Says "Country Must Come Before Party"

Mitch Dworkin
October 10, 2004
The Republican Party as well as America needs a return to mainstream leadership.

Country must come before party. We need a president who can admit to making mistakes and bad decisions, a president who can unite this country and restore credibility back to the White House and to our allies who are now alienated from this Administration, and a president who is fiscally responsible and is in touch with the economic burdens of middle class Americans.

Enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who make over $200,000 per year in a time of war and when the middle class is suffering from job losses, increased costs in health care and education, and record high deficits is not exercising fiscal responsibility and is also clearly not compassionate or conservative.

President Bush does not embody and practice true compassionate and conservative values as he claims. He and most of his administration represent an extreme faction of the Republican Party and are out of touch with the American people and our world allies who once respected us.

A president who while in debate with agreed upon rules who will not directly answer the question that is put to him "President Bush, please give three instances when you think you made a bad decision, and what you did to correct it" and who in one incident interrupts the moderator of the presidential debate three times, changes the moderator's question, and then says on his own without permission from the moderator "You tell Tony Blair we're going alone..." does not have the temperament to lead the Republican Party or this great nation. That is especially true when our countrymen and women are shouldering 88.5% of the costs and casualties in Iraq due to this president's inability to work with the United Nations.

The truth is non-partisan and the truth?according to a federal report released last week?is that economically we are worse-off than we were before President Bush took office with this president being the first president in 72 years to lose net jobs. The truth?according to the CIA?is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which was the basis of President Bush starting a unilateral and preemptive war without a sufficient coalition, an exit strategy, and a plan to win the peace. The truth is that President Bush ran in 2000 as a candidate who would be a uniter as opposed to a divider and this country has never been more partisan in the last 22 years according to John McCain and even VP Dick Cheney admitted to this division in his debate with John Edwards.

There is a growing movement of Republicans called "Republicans for Kerry" who are moving away from President Bush and his extreme policies. It is a difficult and painful move for many Republicans who have never before considered voting for a Democrat, but they know that it will be even more painful if they have to endure another four years of the Bush Administration's out of the mainstream policies.

The Republican Party and the country needs new leadership! Senator John Kerry is running a mainstream campaign of fiscal responsibility, he has demonstrated that he can work well with people and can unite people of differing opinions, and he can admit to making mistakes.

Country must come before party. Republicans of conscience should vote for John Kerry on November 2 so that this country will once again be stronger at home and respected in the world.
Go to forums

Posted by: JM at October 22, 2004 12:05 PM

More thoughts from a Republican who will vote for Kerry this election.

For Rob the decision to vote against his party this year was a struggle, and in the end a single issue made the difference.

I was going to stick with Bush this Fall, despite a hundred logical reasons not to, because he is our Commander in Chief during a very difficult war and very trying times.

But I woke up this morning at 2:30 am, and couldn't get back to sleep... I did a lot of thinking. Here's what I was willing to forgive, up to this point, in relation to our president's shortcomings:

I was willing to forgive Bush's attitude toward toward the environment -- I figured 8 years wasn't enough time to make things much worse. I was wrong.

I was willing to forgive how he screwed up estate tax law with no consideration given to the big picture, so badly that it backfired on the state level -- just to make political points.

I was willing to forgive his lack of articulation and below-average IQ.

I was willing to forgive the fact that he didn't win the popular vote -- I got a kick out of seeing democrats so angry.

I was willing to forgive -- just barely -- the fact that he was going to misuse a constitutional convention to EXCLUDE rights from a group of Americans.

I was willing to forgive the fact that he avoided the Vietnam War by joining the Air National Guard, even though he went AWOL.

I was willing to forget that he drove three companies into bankruptcy, and couldn't find oil in Texas.

I was willing to forgive the fact that he was a thoughtless alcoholic and drug abuser for so much of his youth -- hey, he went clean and found Jesus, right?

I was willing to forgive that he lied about WMD -- I wanted Saddam outta there.

I was willing to forgive that he had no real exit strategy for the war -- I figured American power would eventually prevail in Iraq, and I also liked the idea of us projecting so much of that American power into the Muslim world after 9-11.

I was willing to forgive these huge deficits -- we're at war, and they're only temporary, right?

But I am not willing to forgive his hairbrained scheme to wreck the financial planning industry while simultaneously lowering tax receipts with his poorly conceived RSA (retirement savings account) proposal.

My protest vote goes to Kerry.

Posted by: JM at October 22, 2004 12:16 PM

Another Republican voting for Kerry:

R4K04 member "adaircraft" responded to requests for "concrete information" justifying the decision to support a candidate other than Bush in 2004.

... I am very cynical and I do my homework when it comes to voting. Here are just a few of about 1000 reasons why I will not vote for Bush...
1. Incomes have declined by $1,462 under President Bush.
2. In the last year the middle class has experienced near-record jumps in the cost of healthcare, college tuition, and gasoline.
3. College tuition up 13 percent -- the largest increase on record
4. Health premiums up 11 percent -- the largest increase since 1977
5. Gas prices have risen by 15 percent, causing the average family
to spend $300 more per year -- the second largest increase since 1980

6. If you think the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was terrible, go to google and search for Margie Schoedinger. At least Monica lived to tell her side of the story...

7. In his public speeches leading up the war with Iraq, President Bush insisted that Iraq was developing an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that included biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. No evidence of such programs has been found. According to chief weapons inspector David Kay, "we were almost all wrong," about the Iraqi weapons threat.1

8. During his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to the African nation of Niger was unfounded. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January 2003, just days before Bush uttered the false charge in his State of the Union, CIA officials again tried to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with officials arguing that they had received the information from British sources.2

9. Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly disclosed in July 2003 that he had investigated and debunked intelligence linking Iraqi nuclear ambitions to the African nation of Niger. Wilson's investigation concluded in March 2002, nearly a year before Bush made the assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa. Days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative.

The Washington Post reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." President Bush later told reporters: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official...I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is." He claimed he had ordered his staff to "cooperate fully" in the investigation of the leak.3

10. As the Iraq war began in March 2003, the Pentagon awarded Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), the construction wing of Halliburton, a no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraqi oil fields and conduct "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The initial deal was thought to be worth as much as $7 billion. In postwar Iraq, Halliburton is the largest private contractor, with potential deals totaling over $11 billion.4

While Vice President Cheney served as chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, the company acquired two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., which had signed contracts to sell oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program for more than $73 million.5

The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. "Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans."6

In his retirement pac