« 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

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

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,

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

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