How will Dean beat George Bush?

I prepared a very clear campaign strategy that WILL win Dean this election.

There are two approaches to marketing a campaign, appealing to the emotional side and appealing to the rational side. And both appeals are best launched directly where people live, their living room tvs during sitcoms, football games, news broadcasts etc.

Appealing to the emotional side takes a lot longer, this really needs to get people comfortable with the marketing and get them to relate to it on the same level. The 30 minute ad that Dean ran is a brilliant execution of appealing to the emotional side.

The rational side can only be won over with hard facts, statistics and possibly one of the many statements by noble peace prize winning economists critiquing bush's economic policies and expansionist governmental ideology. And considering all the facts that we have about the bad things that Bush did highlighted in the opening post, a mudslinging campaign aimed at Bush's policies launched by independent sources such as Moveon.org (in order to prevent blowback) will be most effective. This will bring this campaign directly to the front lines, the issues, and prevent bush from hiding behind a ruse of fear and propaganda.

But I NEED YOUR HELP in expanding this strategy, publicizing it, and finding more ways to execute it.

Centroles, you might want to read Frank Rich's think piece in the Arts and Leisure section of today's New York Times

FRANK RICH
Napster Runs for President in '04
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/arts/21RICH.html

I really don't mean to burst your bubble, Centroles, but you're about six to eight months early on this question (and Dean could well not be the Dem nominee).

I'll keep this thread handy and post an answer when the question becomes more relevant.

I see very little chance of Dean not becoming the nominee PD.

He has something like 37% of New Hamsphire while Clark and Kerry both trail at 12% or something like that. A landslide victory at the first primary state will lock him in for the rest.

And while I believe Clark is better equipped to defeat Bush, I as do most democrats would still prefer a real democrat like Dean with a real policy. Clark, Kerry and Edwards are better suited as running mates.

If the strategy outlined above is followed through, I see little chance for Bush.

The democrats will still get all the states they won in 2000. The same people that backed Gore last time around will back Dean this time around. But this time, Dean will get vermont, and the election fiasco will get a lot more lower income people to the polls and will likely get Florida and a few other states as well. Bush has already lost the support of libertarians and this will undoubtedly cost him a few states. So what we're left with is a Dean victory with a very large cushion.

The rich do hoard cash though. Most of their money is sitting around in an offshores bank account somewhere. That's not doing anything to stimulate the economy. Why would adding to the amount stored in offshore banks do anything of the sort?

The poor when given back tax cuts go out and spend the money to buy cars, food, clothes, homes, send their kids to college etc. This is what stimulates the economy and gets it back on it's feet.

But that's off topic. The main issue here isn't who the tax cuts are going to. It's the fact that he spend so much on them while making no effort to limit speding in other areas and ignoring the balloning defecit. He's given away so much pork, so many entitlements to corporations, this is borrowed money that's going to go up rapidly due to interest. This is a debt our children will break their backs trying to pay off.

When you're talking about multimillionaires, I'm sorry but they almost never have all their money tied up in purchases. There are only so many things to buy. Much of the money is usually in a bank. The bank is where any excess money sits. And this is where any money they get back probably ends up.

When you're talking about families making 10-30,000 an year though, the majority of americans. They're often strapped for cash. Any tax rebates gets spent on needed purchases. Thus they stimulate spending and the economy. If Bush wanted the tax cuts to benefit the economy, he should have targeted them to the people who need it the most and are thus most likely to spend it and thus reinvest it back into the economy.

But once again, let's get back on topic. We're not here to discuss where the tax cuts should have gone. We're discussing if there should have even been tax cuts without making any attempt to control other spending in the form of entitlements to corporations (Bush however had no problem cutting the budget to education) when so many noble peace price winning economists were criticizing the tax cuts and stating the they would be ineffective in stimulating job and sustainable economic growth.

The topic.
You say let's get back on the topic.
I say, this IS the TOPIC>

When you're talking about families making 10-30,000 an year though, the majority of americans. They're often strapped for cash. Any tax rebates gets spent on needed purchases. Thus they stimulate spending and the economy. If Bush wanted the tax cuts to benefit the economy, he should have targeted them to the people who need it the most and are thus most likely to spend it and thus reinvest it back into the economy.

Dubya will get his voters that buy the lies or don't care about the lies.

What is needed this time is for the Independents and the Left to compromise and vote Democratic. I am in the Green Party and agonize some about this situation but I will vote for the Democratic cnadidate. Four and a half more years of the present regime will devastate the Middle Class. The economy is a smoke screen that the Neocons will lie about.I have read their spiel and they are damn good at lying.

The Democrats need to lay out the scenerio of what the Dubya gang will do to America and then in simple terms offer the alternative. Most campaigns do not turn on complexities. They are more perception and emotion driven.

I will send a statement to top candidates. I feel that you should also do so.

fair enough, i just hope the other democrats stop this needless squabbling and fall in line before they do more damage to themselves.

How will Dean beat George Bush?

The same way as Bush won last time - CHEAT!

This is why Dean will win...

Originally by jjorge or on his thread

Molly Kurland is a Dean supporter in California. She recently received a fund raising letter from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) signed by James Carville. Molly sent 'a small contribution' along with this letter:

Dear Mr. Carville,

Thank you for your recent letter and request for funds. I agree with you that we have to have a government that represents us. I believe that is the intent of your letter.

I would definitely donate money to the DNC if I thought I would really get representative government from you. I have been a lifelong Democrat.

Let us look at what the Democratic Party has accomplished lately. We were robbed of the 2000 election. Somehow we let the Bush administration get away with that. I will never understand how that could have happened. Then we were slammed in 2002. This trend cannot continue. We have entered the darkest era in American history. We cannot afford to continue down this path.

Why has this happened? A great number of people have become fed up with our political process and have stopped voting. Whether Republican or Democrat, politics seem to be controlled by a few people at the top who think they know best and the people, the rest of us, really have no voice. The last few times I have voted I did it "just in case it makes a difference." That's how much faith I have in the process. But many people have already given up. They stop voting altogether or they vote for third party candidates who have no chance of getting elected, but at least offer the voice of reason. What would it look like if the Democrats had a candidate who listened to the people, gave them a voice and stood up for them?

It would look like Howard Dean.

Him again, you say? What is this infatuation people have with the former governor of Vermont? This internet wonder? What is this man's appeal?

Let me tell you. It's not that the Dean campaign figured out how to use a computer.

It's because Howard Dean genuinely cares about people. The man who gave up a life of Wall Street big money to become a country doctor is a man who really wants to make a difference and help people. It's real. That's what I think is lost on so many people who have spent their lives in politics. I think they've forgotten what it's like to consider the dilemmas of the average person.

Posted on actionforums...

Time to Divide and Conquer


One of the reasons that Bush the First was defeated by Bill Clinton is that Republicans and independents were divided, with some even voting for Ross Perot. It's time to present a strategy to undermine Bush's support within his own ranks. We don't necessarily have to convince conservatives to vote Democratic; just demoralize them to the point of staying home on Election Day. It CAN be done! Yes, I know, currently most right-wingers, given a war against an opponent they couldn't have cared less about 15 years ago, are all whipped up to a frenzy over Bush. They just like war in general; it makes them feel their nation is strong and invincible; the foe is secondary. But what else has he done for them? And what can they really look forward to with four more years of Bush? Consider:
- he has established the beginnings of a Medicare prescription drug plan that ALONE will soon cost taxpayers TWICE as much as federal welfare EVER DID!

- his vaunted tax cuts have only repealed about HALF of what President Clinton's 1993 tax bill INCREASED on the most wealthy of our citizens!

- he campaigned vigorously against the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, then signed it anyway!

- he negotiated and ultimately passed the SORT Treaty with Russia that disarms America's nuclear arsenal to its lowest point in decades but contains virtually NO verification regime to confirm that Russia is complying!

- he called for and achieved the re-entry of the U.S. into UNESCO!

- he supported three extensions of federal unemployment benefits - and will probably support a fourth if it passes Congress this winter!

- he has stated he will not support any more anti-abortion moves, because the country is not "ready" for it!

- after telling the religious right he would not endorse any gay person for work in his administration, he appointed an openly gay man to an ambassadorship!

- he has not made anywhere near a complete military commitment to capturing Osama bin Laden as he said he would!

- he has supported and signed funding for the National Endowment for the Arts that is larger than that agency's budget has been in years!

- he has called for the continuation of the Assault Weapons Ban!

- he has significantly reduced the outstanding debt and arrears of the U.S. in paying its dues to the UN!

- he has shown no interest in having the FDA review the legality of the abortion-inducing RU-486 drug!

- he has called for huge increases in America's commitment to fighting global AIDS!

- he may well call for a return to the Moon: an enormous federal boondoggle that should make the libertarian wing cringe!

- after intially opposing it, he eventually caved in and supported the Democrats' call for a huge new federal bureaucracy: the Department of Homeland Security!

- his federal budget deficits are larger than any president's in American history; in fact TWICE as large as any previous record!

- he refused to abolish President Clinton's executive order that banned discrimination in federal employment based on sexual orientation!

- in contrast to any conservative goal of a "flat tax", he changed the U.S. tax code so it now has SIX tax brackets instead of five, as it had when he took office!

- his "No Child Left Behind" program violates every tenet of historical "local control" in K-12 education and provides arguably the largest federal intrusion into education in U.S. history!

- he has been extraordinarily tepid in his support of Taiwan's call for a declaration of its independence, in order to placate mainland China!

Share these and other facts with your right-wing companions, and watch them start to question their "rah-rah" enthusiasm. Many right-wingers, including most on this site, are so far out there that it would not be hard to convince them that Bush is a "covert" moderate who does not deserve their support. Encourage them to check out the U.S. Constitution Party or some other quasi-fascist party where they will find their convictions truly appreciated!
- Joseph Blaszak, Software Engineer (December 20, 2003; Muskegon, MI)

2003: A YEAR OF DISTORTION FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

On December 13th, the White House issued a document entitled "2003: A Year of Accomplishment for the American People." The document made various inaccurate and deceptive claims about the Administration's record over the last year. This report by the Center for American Progress seeks to correct those distortions, matching the White House's rhetoric with facts. Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.

Produced by the Center for American Progress, 12/13/03 (www.americanprogress.org)

CLAIM vs. FACT: Health Care

DRUG COVERAGE

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic legislation the President signed will create a modern Medicare system, providing seniors with prescription drug benefits."


FACT: "The new law gives private insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare. Beneficiaries will have to choose a drug insurer without knowing exactly what drugs that insurer will cover. Premiums will be higher in areas with older or sicker seniors." - American Progress Fellow Jeanne Lambrew, 12/4/03

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose the drug coverage they currently receive through their former because their employers will drop such coverage when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available." - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/11/03

FACT: "[T]he insurance plan would provide little relief for about 3 million people with moderate assets and incomes near the poverty level and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 a year more than they currently spend." - Boston Globe, 11/18/03

FACT: "A substantial number of the 6.4 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are eligible for Medicaid and currently receive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid would be made worse off under the Medicare conference agreement." - Center of Budget and Policy Priorities Report, 11/21/03

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare." -USA Today, 11/25/03

DRUG COSTS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Beneficiaries who lack coverage will cut their yearly drug costs roughly in half, in exchange for an approximately $35 monthly premium. The more than one-third of seniors with low incomes will be eligible for even greater drug savings, paying as little as $1 per prescription."

FACT: "nder the new plan, seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006. This figure is nearly 60 percent more than they paid in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation. Expenses are projected to continue to rise so that by 2013 middle-income seniors will be paying more than two and a half times as much for prescription drugs (adjusting for inflation) as they did in 2000." - Ctr. for Economic and Policy Research, 12/04/03

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic Medicare legislation that the President signed included a provision establishing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)...These HSAs will allow more Americans to save for health care needs, and will allow more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage."

FACT: The creation of "Health Care Savings Accounts" provides an "incentive to shift more costs to workers, who may be asked to 'match' their employer's contribution to a HSA with its high deductibles and high co-payments." Urban Institute economist Len Burman said HSAs will become "a boon to the healthy and wealthy and a bane" to older, sicker co-workers left to confront higher costs and premiums in traditional health plans. - Scripps Howard News, Scripps Howard, 12/3/03

FACT: According to major studies conducted in the past by RAND, the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries, "premiums for comprehensive, employer-based coverage could more than double if such accounts became widespread." - CBPP, 11/18/03


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Economy/Deficits/Taxes

ECONOMY

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."

FACT: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term." - BLS Data

FACT: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. - Economic Policy Institute

FACT: "Twenty five major American cities saw a 19% increase in the need for emergency food last year alone." - UK Guardian, 11/3/03

FACT: "New jobs created during the 2004-05 period are forecast to pay an average of $35,855, far lower than the $43,629 average pay of those jobs lost between 2001-03."
- U.S. Conference of Mayors, 11/10/03

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

FACT: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row - the first time in more than 13 years. - Economic Policy Institute


DEFICITS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Maintaining Fiscal Discipline: [The President has] continued to restrain spending."

FACT: The House recently passed a massive $373 billion spending bill, laden with pork-barrel spending and controversial provisions as far as the eye could see. "The size of the measure invites abuse. Spending set-asides for home-state projects have grown to extraordinary levels, filling scores of pages in the Congressional Record." President Bush issued a "personal appeal" to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to "push the spending package through the Senate" without changes after the House passed the pork-laden bill." - AP, 12/8/03, 12/5/03, Wall Street Journal 12/3/08

FACT: "For the 2003 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government recorded a deficit of $374.8 billion, according to revised figures. In November alone, the deficit swelled to nearly $43 billion." - AP, 12/12/03

FACT: "Most observers familiar with the budget outlook, including the White House's Office of Management and Budget, agree that deficits will become even larger after 2013." - American Progress Senior Economist Christian Weller, 12/12/03

TAX CUTS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "91 million taxpayers received, on average, a tax cut of $1,126. Since the President took office, 109 million taxpayers have received, on average, a tax cut of $1,544. Without the fiscal measures implemented under President Bush, there would be as many as 2 million fewer jobs for American workers today."

FACT: 80% of taxpayers would receive less than $1,083, and half would receive $100 or less. The handful of millionaires who would get about $90,000 artificially inflates the average. - Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/22/03, CBPP, 5/28/03

FACT: 'The economic consulting firm Economy.com found that the tax cuts were responsible for only 13 percent of the growth last quarter - meaning that we still would have seen GDP growth of about 7 percent without the tax cut." - American Progress Fellow Gene Sperling, 12/11/03


WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,209."

FACT: "Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than $2,209." Additionally, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." - Urban Inst.-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 1/21/03

Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Environment

"HEALTHY FORESTS"

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "As part of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, he signed bipartisan legislation to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws, restoring our nation's forests, and preserving the forest economy."

FACT: The Congressional Research service reported that the "Health Forests" bill may actually increase the risk of fire. CRS expert Ross W. Corte said, "Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles" that contributes to fires. - CRS report, 8/22/2000

FACT: In fact, the bill was sought by the timber industry "not because they wanted to remove brush and chaparral" which can cause forest fires but because it would "increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight." - CBS News, 12/3/03

POWER PLANT EMISSIONS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules on power plant emissions."

FACT: "The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." - CBS News, 11/22/02

FACT: "More than a dozen state attorneys general yesterday sought to block the federal government from implementing a rule change they argued would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants. Fourteen states, and a number of cities - including New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. - are seeking a court injunction to impede a measure by the Environmental Protection Agency before it goes into effect." - AP, 11/18/03

FACT: "The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's civil enforcement office has resigned, complaining the White House is undermining anti-pollution efforts at power plants that violate clean air laws. Eric Schaeffer, a lawyer at the EPA for a dozen years dating from the first Bush administration, said in a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman that the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." - CBS News, 3/1/02

MERCURY EMISSIONS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."

FACT: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. - CBS News, 11/6/03

FACT: "The Administration is proposing to use a provision of the Clean Air Act never before used to regulate toxics and setting a level of reductions for mercury emissions far below what the Clean Air Act toxic provisions would require. Using the [traditional] provisions of the Clean Air Act would achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2008. The Administration's proposals suggest only a 30% reduction, to the benefit of Coal-fired power plants and utilities." - Former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, 12/4/03


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Other Domestic Priorities

EDUCATION

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Parents, teachers, and principals are seeing a positive difference in America's schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is raising standards for students and putting the focus on student achievement."

FACT: "The sweeping federal law left cash-strapped states battered and confused in 2003. More nationwide provisions will take effect in 2004, along with the threat of losing millions of dollars for states that don't pass muster." - Stateline, 12/8/03


WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history."


FACT: "President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants." - House Appropriations Committee report, 3/10/03

CONSUMER PROTECTION

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Enhancing Consumer Credit Protections. The President proposed and signed into law legislation to ensure citizens are treated fairly when they apply for credit. It also addresses the growing problem of identity theft by establishing a nationwide fraud alert system."


FACT: "In addition to previous votes that gutted state provisions to prevent financial institutions from sharing customers' information with others, the final version of the bill will roll back states' anti-identity-theft measures." - SF Chronicle, 11/22/03

FACT: The Administration proposed new regulations that "would shield national banks from state laws enacted to protect consumers from predatory lending." The regulations were criticized by NY AG Eliot Spitzer as preventing the states from prosecuting "nationally chartered financial services companies for charging outsized fees and interest rates to poor consumers who have bad credit." - Financial Times, 12/11/03

VETERANS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Honoring Our Commitment to Veterans: America owes veterans and those on the front lines of freedom a great debt of gratitude."


FACT: The Administration is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports "hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors." - Wash Post, 1/17/03, UPI, 10/17/03

FACT: "One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help" in President Bush's tax cut. "More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty." - Children's Defense Fund, 6/6/03


WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush was pleased to sign legislation that resolved the issue of concurrent receipt in a fair and responsible manner."


FACT: In the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill, Congress stipulated that veterans with disabilities would no longer have to give up part of the retirement pay they have earned. In other words, they would receive retired pay and disability pay concurrently. Bush threatened to veto the bill if it includes concurrent receipt. - Baltimore Sun, 12/1/02, Wash. Post, 10/7/02

AIDS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Leading the Fight Against HIV/AIDS: In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief an historic 5-year, $15 billion effort to turn the tide of the AIDS pandemic. Only 4 months later, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Emergency Plan based on the President's proposal."


FACT: President Bush's budget introduced four days after his State of the Union "only sought $2 billion for the year" for AIDS - 33% less than the $3 billion needed to keep his $15-billion-over-5-year pledge. When the Senate voted to increase the President's budget, the White House "repeated its strong opposition to any funding beyond $2 billion." - LA Times, 10/31/03

FACT: "President Bush plans to ask Congress for relatively small funding increases to fight AIDS and poverty in the developing world, stepping back from his highly publicized pledge to spend huge sums to help fight them." - WSJ, 12/10/2003


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Iraq

INT'L FINANCING

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."

FACT: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." - NY Times, 12/7/03

INT'L MILITARY HELP

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Our mission has broad support from the international community, including troops from 18 out of 25 current and future NATO countries."

FACT: While the U.S. has over 160,000 troops in Iraq, the next largest force contingent is Britain, with about 9,000 troops. Additionally, since President Bush asked for more military help in September, not one additional new international soldier has been sent to Iraq. - UK Guardian, 12/12/03

WMD

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "We are now learning the full truth about Saddam Hussein's regime: clear evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons program."

FACT: "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." - Reuters, 9/15/03

FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material...We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort…Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers...Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "[We have found] previously undocumented ties to terror organizations."

FACT: The bipartisan September 11th commission report "undercuts Bush Administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." - LA Times, 7/19/03

FACT: "Since the fall of Baghdad, coalition forces have not brought to light any significant evidence demonstrating the bond between Iraq and Al Qaeda." - NY Times, 7/20/03

FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies."
- National Journal, 8/9/03


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Afghanistan

MILITARY SUPPORT

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "America and more than 20 allied countries are working to help the Afghan people rebuild their war-torn nation. More than 15 million Afghan citizens have been freed from the brutal zealotry of the Taliban."

FACT: The U.N. delegation reported that "insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today." Insecurity is especially a problem in the southern part of the country where "attacks against non-governmental organizations was contributing to the slowing of reconstruction." Throughout the nation "individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders." The problems are exacerbated in many areas of the country "by terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Also of serious concern: "Arbitrary control exercised by local commanders and factional armies [that] has resulted in heavy casualties." - UN Report, 11/11/03

FUNDING

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The U.S. Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act which authorizes $3.47 billion for Afghanistan over fiscal years 2003-2006."

FACT: While President Bush declared a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" in April 2002, the nation has "received only a fraction of the $10.2 billion" that the World Bank said was necessary over the first five years. - Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 10/16/03


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Homeland Security

TERRORIST FINANCING

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Treasury Department has frozen over $136 million from over 240 terrorist-related entities."

FACT: "Federal authorities do not have a clear understanding of how terrorists move their financial assets and are still struggling to prevent the flow of money to terror groups," according to a new report by the GAO to be released Sunday. - NY Times, 12/12/03


FIRST RESPONDERS

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Helping State and Local First Responders: The President is continuing to give our nation's first responder and public health system the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future terrorist attack."


FACT: "Emergency Responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. The United States remains dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Police departments do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following a WMD attack. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing." - Council on Foreign Relations Report by former Sen. Warrren Rudman (R-NH), 7/29/03

FACT: "Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."- USA Today, 12/12/03

FACT: The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." - USA Today, 12/2/03

FACT: "The White House is now saying that its spending plan does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. It concedes that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged." - NY Times, 2/26/03

CYBER-SECURITY

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The President provided a framework for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing the first-ever National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and the National Cyberspace Security Division."
FACT: The annual cybersecurity report card is out, and "the Department of Homeland Security - the government's lead agency on matters of Internet security - led the list of seven federal agencies that earned an "F" grade for their own network security efforts in 2003." And "also earning an 'F' was the Justice Department, the agency charged with investigating and prosecuting many cases involving hacking and other forms of cybercrime." - Washington Post, 12/9/03


Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.

Stunted Growth
Why Bush's policies make economic recovery unsustainable

By Robert Kuttner
Web Exclusive: 11.6.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

The economy grew at a sizzling 7.2 percent last quarter, surprising many analysts. If this performance continues, it's good news for the Bush administration -- and the opposition Democrats will stop talking about the economy.

But before Bush and company declare "economic mission accomplished," consider two problems. First, the benefits of the growth are not trickling down. Second, a high growth rate built on Bush's policies is unsustainable.

Even with the highest growth rate since the mid-1980s, the economy shed another 41,000 jobs in the third quarter and has lost 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office. Second, a boom with deficits this huge eventually pushes up interest rates and is thus self-extinguishing.

Curiously, only about one-fifth of the quarter's high growth rate has resulted from the deficits. Most of it reflects low interest rates and consumer borrowing and spending.

It's sensible to run big deficits in the short run to help kick-start a flat economy. This year's deficit will be $250 billion to $300 billion, about 3 percent of GDP. If this were just a one-year stimulus program with a lot of aid to cities, states and the jobless, that would be about good policy.

But Bush's deficit was generated not to stimulate short-run demand or to keep public services flowing during a recession but to cut taxes -- most emphatically for America's wealthiest -- and to slash social spending. The problem is that spending has already been cut to the bone. Discretionary federal spending is at its lowest level in three decades.

There are also new claims on the public purse, such as the mess in Iraq. Even the Bush administration has pledged not to cut Social Security or Medicare and is proposing a new prescription drug benefit.

So further spending cuts are unlikely. Meanwhile, the big multiyear tax cuts legislated in 2001 and 2002 are just beginning to kick in. The higher growth rates will increase government revenues, but not nearly enough to compensate for the losses created by the immense tax cuts on the wealthy that take effect in 2004 and 2005. Thus even bigger deficits loom.

Sooner or later, these deficits will lead to higher interest rates as public borrowing starts competing with private demand for capital. And those higher rates will choke off the consumer borrowing and spending that has been the other engine of recovery.

The Bush tax cuts were also advertised as "supply side" tonics for capital investment. Business investment did improve slightly in the third quarter, but this is not likely to be sustained, because of a large overhang of excess capacity that discourages business from investing new capital.

In addition, the loss of manufacturing jobs is continuing, especially in the swing states of the Midwest. The administration has no strategy to deal with this loss. And the states are still experiencing a major budget crisis, which forces them to raise taxes and slash public services.

Ordinary people may get a small cut in their federal income taxes. But this is often more than offset by school closings, losses of other public services, and hikes in local property taxes or state sales taxes.

And even though the economy is beginning to generate some new jobs, good manufacturing jobs that pay upwards of $20 an hour are migrating overseas, to be replaced by Wal-Mart jobs. Ordinary people also face the squeeze of increased costs and reduced benefits in their health insurance.

Bottom line: The economy is still a risky proposition for the Bush administration. Deficits big enough to keep growth rates at anything like 7.2 percent are deficits that will scare the money markets and choke off the recovery. More normal growth rates of 3 to 4 percent will keep interest rates low but are not sufficient to produce plenty of good jobs.

Back when inflation was a problem, economists used to talk about a "soft landing" -- a reduction in inflation but not so wrenching to produce recession. What Bush needs is a soft takeoff: growth sufficiently robust to produce high-wage jobs but not frightening to the bond market.

In principle, this kind of growth is possible. But it won't result from the unbalanced fiscal policy of the Bush administration -- big, permanent deficits based on tax cuts for the rich coupled with starvation of public services.

In the end, voters base their economic conclusions on their personal situation, not on the statistics. To paraphrase the American Express ad, the economy that matters is yours. The third-quarter statistics may look good, but the economic condition of large number of Americans still feels precarious.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of the Prospect.

This column originally appeared in yesterday's Boston Globe.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9599

How and why will Dean win?

For all the reasons listed above.

.... but the biggest reason of all is Dean's growing 'Army of Common Citizens' who would walk through fire for him.

Even if Dean does as well as Gore + Nader did in 2000, it'll still be a close race. To avoid that, Dean needs to grab some moderate votes. Saying that he would repeal the Bush tax cuts can only hurt him. Clark as runningmate will help him and the party in general a lot to recapture the flag.

PDiddie
I always read your posts with interest and I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but I think you're just plain wrong on this one. All the signs are that Dean is virtually unstoppable, and he may be the clear winner before February is over.

In any case, there's no harm in our discussing how Dean COULD win IF he is the eventual nominee.

As a matter of fact a lot of people are already thinking about who he should choose for a running mate
( IF he is successful in obtaining the nomination)

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=496698#496698