Kerry or Bush?

Well, Communism was certainly good for the Ukrainians...

 

JOBS THE ISSUE? FINE! HERE'S THE RECORD

The nation seems to be over its quota of economic idiots right now who want to make jobs the issue in the 2004 presidential race. "Outsourcing" is the big buzz-word right now, and both the politicians and the media-types are eager to tell you how many jobs have been lost overseas because of the outsourcing phenomenon.

OK ... here are some statistics. And NO, they don't come from some conservative think tank or some research group under the control of the Republican Party. They come from the Labor Department's. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The peak unemployment rate during the recession that began in Clinton's term was 6.4 percent. The current unemployment rate is 5.6 percent.

In the last year more than 2,000,000 new jobs have been added in the United States.

Between 1983 and 2003 outsourcing went from 6.5 million jobs to about 10 million jobs.

Between 1983 and 2002 jobs in-sourcing -- jobs coming TO the United States -- went from 2.5 million to 6.5 million.

If you subtract the jobs coming to the United States every year from the jobs going out every year you come up with a "net" figure. The net outsourced jobs reached its peak in the early 1980's; a peak of about 4 million jobs. In other words, things were worse at the end of the Carter Administration then they are right now.

During this same period ... from '83 to '03 a total of 38 million jobs have been created by private businesses in the United States. No other industrialized country in the world has matched this number.

So ... that's a pretty bleak picture, isn't it?

 

What policies are you referring to?

 

You have a point.

However, when you're that good, it's hard to be humble.

 

That's what Mac Davis said.

 

He also said (and Elvis sang):

"A little less conversation a little more action, please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me."

Jeff


Mac Davis for President in '04
"He will satisfaction you!"

 

Re: Safer?

Deb-

True - Bush policies have (and will) benefit a much shrunken western US timber industry. But the prime reason for it was last year's terrible western fires. Congress caved when something had to be done to diminish the unburned supply of timber.

As for the impression that Bush "lowered" standards on water, air, and so on - this is a false but popular impression the media conveyed and Clinton intended they convey. How? By stonewalling real environmental action until his last weeks in office. Bush put holds on them (e.g., asenic standards), as a new office holder of the opposing party would be expected. Later, they took effect. When it came to air quality standards on diesel exhaust, Clinton could have acted long ago - but didn't. These and other examples have led The New Republic's environmental columnist Gregg Easterbrook to argue - convincingly - last year that Bush is a better environmental president than Clinton!

Will this help Bush? No. It didn't help Bush I, either!

As for the "lack" of a Bush vision, you're obviously not thinking geopolitically. Whether or not he has merely "complicat[ed] an already complicated situtation" - only time will tell.

I'm only glad 9/11 did not occur on my watch.

--Orson

 

Re: Re: Safer?

And let's remember the New Republic is no bastion of conservatism!

 

The election is now set... wait until Labor Day!

Althought many expect a close election, I'm betting it's Bush's to lose.

If Kerry is not painted as a wild-eyed liberal like Dukakis in 1988, then his flip-flops will be his undoing. It has been said that the middle of American politics developed "buyers remorse" after Clinton left office, and even Dems trust Bush to a surprising degree (25%), I believe this issue will keep a majority on the incumbent's side.

Finally, since when has a senator won election to president without incumbency? A long long time!
Ergo, Bush wins.

--Orson
PS Keep in mind, most of the electorate sleeps until Labor Day, politically speaking.

 

IT'S KERRY

Well ... the battle now seems to be joined. The most liberal Senator in the United States Senate, the most liberal Senator from Massachusetts, is going to be the Democratic nominee. Today John Edwards will drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. He will then wait patiently for the call from Kerry to be his vice-Presidential nominee. Never, in modern history, have the Democrats crowned their prince this early in an open primary season.

This campaign has a long way to go ... and many things will become known about John Kerry that aren't known right now. Perhaps, though, you would like to respond to just a few thoughts:

The choice here is going to be crystal clear. It's a choice between a man who believes in the sovereignty of the United States, and a man who seeks to subordinate the sovereignty of the United States to the authority of the United Nations. It will be a choice between a man who wants to treat Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and one who wants to treat it as a war. A choice between a man who wants to arrest Islamic terrorists and send them before international courts for trial, and a man who wants to send the U.S. Marines to find these terrorists and kill them. We'll have a choice between a man who respects the men and women of our armed forces, and a man who called them killers and rapists even while they were still dying in the jungles of Vietnam.

John Kerry seems to think that his four months of service in Vietnam inoculates him against any criticism of his defense-related voting record during his 19 years in the U.S. Senate. John Kerry will say that anyone who criticizes that voting record is attacking his patriotism.

Democrats ran to the polls and voted for Kerry largely for one reason and one reason only: because they hate Bush. Propelled solely by this hatred, they probably haven't stopped for just a minute to consider exactly what they are voting for. They got what they wanted, a front-loaded primary process where the nominee was chosen in six weeks. Now they can "get Bush." The only problem? Most Democrats have no idea what they voted for. We get to spend the next 8 months reminding them.

Do they know that John Kerry considers the war on terror a mistake? Do they realize that he believes terrorism is "a law enforcement problem?" Are they aware that Kerry has flip-flopped on every major issue? Is their hatred of Bush so all-consuming that they are blind to the issues the country faces? Do they realize John Kerry would raise their taxes? Increase the deficit? Probably not. It's all about hating Bush. Facts don't matter and neither does the future of the country. It's all emotionally-based.

With the nominee no longer uncertain, it will be interesting to see if the media picks apart Kerry's record. He has 19 years worth of votes to explain. And what about all of the campaign contributions? We've already had a few of those scandals surface. They seemed to have been swept under the rug and explained away by the Vietnam magic wand. That's what Kerry does if you back him into a corner on an issue, he reminds you of his service in Vietnam.

It's going to be an incredible eight months. I think I'll go ahead and cancel my summer vacation now.

 

Choices...

While Kerry may not be the best possible choice of all possibilities for president, I would take him a thousand times over the privileged frat-boy that we currently have in office. We need intelligence and cool-headed logic at this time in history, not some guy who thinks best (if he thinks at all) after he's downed a six-pack or two with his party buddies.

If you look at the past lives of these two individuals, it is patently clear who has the moral advantage - in case it isn't obvious to those of you who adulate our current president, the name is KERRY.

Kerry did his time in Vietnam - he has a right to criticize that war. Bush did not, but claims the mantle of super conservatism/war hawk ideology.

The only thing I do agree with Bush on is that going after terrorists with military might is absolutely correct - and I am concerned that Kerry may be "soft" in this area. But, the opportunism that exists with the recent war in Iraq, where the war was as much about revenge for the insults to the father Bush in not having "won the first Gulf War" as anything else, is disgusting and has squandered the moral advantage that Bush could have enjoyed had he focused exclusively on the real bad guys - not just targets of opportunity. This is not to defend Saddam in any way - he was a horrible tyrant and I feel good knowing he was destroyed, but we should have done it on that basis, not on some trumped up WMD analysis or linkages to Al-Qaeda that simply did not exist.

Kerry all the way in 2004.....

 

Re: Choices...

Versus the privileged Kerry, who has lived his life off other men's money by marrying their wives & daughters?

President Bush hasn't taken a drink since 1975.....next myth, please.

Then why did Kerry make an passionate speech urging US voters to not worry about who served in the military, and how, when Bill Clinton was the Democratic candidate? What has changed since then, other then the Democrats now having a candidate who is a Veteran?

Oh, we won the first Gulf War. I was there.....trust me, we won. We completely annihilated the Iraqi military, and expelled them from Kuwait. If you recall, that's exactly what was authorized under both the UN Resolutions and the Congressional authorization to use military force.

BTW....I'll take this opportunity to mention that John Kerry voted to authorize the President to use the US Armed Forces to combat terrorism, to include the invasion of Iraq. Now he's trying to backpedal. That should tell you all that you need to know about John Kerry.

 

A LITTLE EXTRA HELP ...

Yesterday I read a letter from a retired Army Colonel to John Kerry. The letter writer saw action in Vietnam, Somalia and the Gulf War. To say the least, he isn't all that impressed with the apparent Democratic nominee. OK ... I'm going to post the letter here ... lifting it out of the column by Jay Bryant.


If you wish to read the column....just click here

Dear Mr. Kerry;
After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.

I have children, and my children have children. They will, perhaps, stumble upon your words, much as one might stumble upon a pile of dog droppings. I do not relish the thought of having to explain that your "experiences" are either a bald-faced lie, or you belong to that less-than-1% of Viet Nam veterans who committed war crimes/atrocities. Either way, your words do great harm to the institution of the Senate, my home state of Massachusetts, the Armed Services in which I proudly served for 27 years, and the very country that you aspire to lead.

Is it true that you single-handedly prevented a vote on a Senate version of H.R. 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2001 - a bill that passed the House by a vote of 410-1? There are many who believe that our failure to speak decisively on that issue cost the lives of thousands of Montagnard tribesman in Viet Nam. Where do you stand on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003? Will you support a parallel bill in the Senate? Is it true that you served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs and in that role you fought hard to limit the expenditure of funds to investigate sightings or search for remains? You have, I believe, been a steadfast, staunch and vocal advocate for normalizing relations with Viet Nam. Could it be that your beloved first cousin, Mr. Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi worth billions of dollars? Any truth to the rumor that you didn't really fling your "hard-earned" military medals over the White House fence in a juvenile fit of pique as you say you did, but rather, you threw your roommate's medals instead?

I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and your, sir, are no war hero.

-- Glenn Lackey

 

Sheez!!!!

I thought academics were generally liberal in nature, but I guess distance learning academics are more from the pro-military, anti-civil rights, head-in-the-sand about Vietnam group that currently is running the country.

I ask you Bush supporters - honestly now. How can you look at the mess he's made of the Iraq thing and honestly tell yourself or anyone else for that matter that this man deserves to be re-elected? I haven't even mentioned his mishandling of the economy yet - but that too. Outsourcing, corporate payoffs, attacking the white-collar workforce, sweetheart deals for the wealthiest Americans, the "No Child Left Behind Act" (translated from "Bush speak" means "ALL Children Left Behind Act")...

I mean really!!!

Don't get me wrong - I voted for Bush's father, and came around to Reagan. I think kicking the Soviet Union out of orbit was the ultimate achievement of Republican foreign policy. But this younger Bush? Please!!

Gag me with a spoon should I have to hear any more of this military ranting about Kerry being a spoiled rich kid who turned traitor. He served his time, he spoke his mind - whether the closed circle of the military resents his breaking ranks or not is not my concern. The important thing is that this guy has backbone, and will put the US and the world into a better space than the short-sighted shoot-from-the-hip politics of our current president could ever do.

I do not live in a world where ANYONE I know thinks Bush is worth re-electing, so forgive my astonishment. Again, I'm talking about FORMER Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike. Even CURRENT Republicans. Lord help us!

 

Re: Sheez!!!!

Thank the Lord we DL people have more sanity!

 

AP POLL SHOWS BUSH AND KERRY TIED, NADER AT SIX PERCENT

Polls at this point are probably worthless, but this latest poll shows an interesting trend. First of all, people need to be reminded that the president of the United States is elected by the electoral college, not 771 randomly sampled registered voters. With an election that probably once again will be tight, it doesn't so much matter who the voters are, as where they live. And this is where the nightmare begins for the Democrats.

Say just for a minute that of those 6 percent that are voting for Nader, 1 percent of them live in Florida, New Hampshire or some other state where the vote could be very close. All it will take to ultimately decide the election will be a few thousand Nader voters not pulling the lever for John Kerry. This all came up when Nader entered the race, but this is the first big poll since then that shows Ralphie boy with any significant support.

There are states that Kerry has no chance of winning and states that Bush has no chance of winning. That leaves a very few select battleground states and Ralph Nader, no matter what he says, provides ballot insurance for the Bush campaign.

Can you believe the election is still 8 months away? It's like when you were a kid trying to sleep on Christmas eve....you can hardly wait.

 

Re: Re: Sheez!!!!

LOL! Thank the Lord I'm one of them...!

 

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how anyone can think that voting for Kerry is voting your pocketbook. When we leave the market alone, and let supply and demand do their thing, it seems we will prosper as a nation.

As for security, we all have the luxury of saying what should be done, and where we should have troops without having to deal with the consequences of making those decisions. There will always be questionable moves. Politics further complicate these moves. Don't think for two seconds that under Kerry, we will not be as active in the world as we are today (to include military action). Bush's actions against terrorism were the result of a mandate. It just so happens that when the Democrats began to feel that the mourning was over, they began to criticize Bush. This is why they supported the Iraqi invasion, but flip- flopped later.

I am scared of how amazingly ignorant and/or deceiving Liberals tend to be on economic issues.

 

Re: Re: Choices...

You need to know that Kerry urged Clinton to do what Bush later did - only he doesn't want you to recall it!

"[W]e urge [President Bill Clinton]... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

--Senator John Kerry
Committee on Armed Services (and 27
other US senators)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

 

"THE NASTIEST CAMPAIGN WE'VE EVER SEEN"

If you think that congratulatory phone call from President Bush to Senator Kerry on the eve of the Democratic front-runner's coronation meant anything, you have another thing coming. The next eight months are going to bring us the most vicious campaign in our nation's history. Forget '88, '92 or even 2000. This will be one for the ages. And what a fun ride it will be.

Senator John McCain had it right yesterday, when he said on ABC's 'This Week' that "I think this is going to be probably the nastiest campaign we've ever seen." Absolutely...and there are many reasons why. The biggest reason is the left's all-consuming hatred for George W. Bush. Make no mistake: the Democrats don't care about the safety and security of the United States of America, nor do they give a rip about taxes, jobs or health care. It's about the Bush-hating.

The Kerry campaign will drone on and on about the deficit, health care and they'll try and use the word "reckless" as much as possible. They're also going to attempt to change the subject as often as possible when Kerry's record is discussed. Oh and remember, he served in Vietnam.

The Bush side, with the Democratic nominee chosen, will spend the next 8 months and millions of dollars exposing Kerry for what he is: a flip-flopping liberal who is soft on terrorism, and someone who wants to turn our military over to the UN to protect us. John Kerry thinks terrorism is a law enforcement problem and George Bush views them as an enemy that must be destroyed. It's no more complicated than that.