The Best Marketing Strategy to Beat Bush

1. 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!

2. His federal budget deficits are larger than any president's in American history; in fact TWICE as large as any previous record! This was achieved through uncontrolled pork barrel spending, huge entitlements to major corporations and no contract bids and tax rebates to his biggest political contributors.

The Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers.

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

"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

3. 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!

The prescription drug plan which provides very little help to most elderly, will actually leave some elderly paying more than they currently do, take away the government's right to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices or purchase drugs cheaper from Canada and yet will still cost tax payers $400 billion dollars over 10 years and 2 trillion the next decade by offering up tens of billions in entitlements to drug companies.

"

Yes, I have a dogpile, Centroles; be back later to post them.

(BTW, I'm thinking your Roundtable membership is gonna be revoked if you keep rockin' the boat like this... :wink: )

Wait a minute, here's one handy. This guy doesn't sound like he's going to vote at all...

Published in the Seattle P-I:

lol pdiddle, yes i do tend to rock the boat A LOT.

I consider my views most in line with the libertarian party but place a higher degree of importance of social issues (like gay marriage, patriot acts etc) than economic ones. Yet I supported the war in Iraq even though I personally believed that it was over oil. I would've voted for McCain in 2000 but not Bush. I view Bush as the anitlibertarian and want to see hiim replaced.

pdiddle Quote:
"I'm the commander - see, I don't explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

-- President "Bring 'em on", Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, 2002

The Uncompassionate Conservative

It's not that he's mean. It's just that when it comes to seeing how his policies affect people, George W. Bush doesn't have a clue.

By Molly Ivins

November/December 2003 Issue



Rhetoric vs. Reality
George W. Bush the candidate promised to put the nation's needy atop his agenda. But, while discretionary spending has balooned, funding for programs that benefit the poor and at-risk has been cut or frozen. MotherJones.com takes a quick look at how Bush's 'compassionate' talk measures up against his spending priorities.



E-mail article
Print article


Death By a Thousand Cuts: Bush Economics Hits Home

E-mail the editor


In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of his decisions on people.

On the few occasions when Bush does directly encounter the down-and-out, he seems to empathize. But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.

Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.

There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on.

When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of this huge reality of Texas.

Take any area -- environment, labor, education, taxes, health -- and go to the websites of public-interest groups in that field. You will find page after page of minor adjustments, quiet repeals, no-big-deal new policies, all of them cruel, destructive, and harmful. A silent change in regulations, an executive order, a funding cutoff. No headlines. Below the radar. Again and again and again. Head Start, everybody's favorite government program, is being targeted for "improvement" by leaving it to the tender mercies of Mississippi and Alabama. An AIDS program that helps refugees in Africa and Asia gets its funding cut because one of the seven groups involved once worked with the United Nations, which once worked with the Chinese government, which once supported forced abortions.

So what manner of monster is behind these outrages? I have known George W. Bush slightly since we were both in high school, and I studied him closely as governor. He is neither mean nor stupid. What we have here is a man shaped by three intertwining strands of Texas culture, combined with huge blinkers of class. The three Texas themes are religiosity, anti-intellectualism, and machismo. They all play well politically with certain constituencies.

Let's assume the religiosity is genuine; no one is in a position to know otherwise. I leave it to more learned commentators to address what "Christian" might actually mean in terms of public policy.

The anti-intellectualism is also authentic. This is a grudge Bush has carried at least since his college days when he felt looked down on as a frat rat by more cerebral types. Despite his pedigree and prep schools, he ran into Eastern stereotypes of Texans at Yale, a common experience at Ivy schools in that time. John F. Kennedy, the consummate, effortlessly graceful, classy Harvard man, had just been assassinated in ugly old Dallas, and Lyndon Johnson's public piety gave many people the creeps. Texans were more or less thought of as yahoo barbarians somewhere between the Beverly Hillbillies and Deliverance. I do not exaggerate by much. To have a Texas accent in the East in those days was to have 20 points automatically deducted from your estimated IQ. And Texans have this habit of playing to the stereotype -- it's irresistible. One proud Texan I know had never owned a pair of cowboy boots in his life until he got a Nieman Fellowship to Harvard. Just didn't want to let anyone down.

For most of us who grow up in the "boonies" and go to school in the East, it's like speaking two languages -- Bill Clinton, for example, is perfectly bilingual. But it's not unusual for a spell in the East to reinforce one's Texanness rather than erode it, and that's what happened to Bush. Bush had always had trouble reading -- we assume it is dyslexia (although Slate's Jacob Weisberg attributes it to aphasia); his mom was still doing flash cards with him when he was in junior high. Feeling intellectually inferior apparently fed into his resentment of Easterners and other known forms of snob.

Bush once said, "There's a West Texas populist streak in me, and it irritates me when these people come out to Midland and look at my friends with just the utmost disdain." In his mind, Midland is the true-blue heartland of the old vox pop. The irony is that Midland along with its twin city, Odessa, is one of the most stratified and narrow places in the country. Both are oil towns with amazingly strict class segregation. Midland is the white-collar, Republican town; Odessa is the blue-collar, Democratic town. The class conflict plays out in an annual football rivalry so intense that H.G. Bissinger featured it in his best-selling book, Friday Night Lights. To mistake Midland for the volk heartland is the West Texas equivalent of assuming that Greenwich, Connecticut, is Levittown.

In fact, people in Midland are real nice folks: I can't prove that with statistics, but I know West Texas and it's just a fact. Open, friendly, no side to 'em. The problem is, they're way isolated out there and way limited too. You can have dinner at the Petroleum Club anytime with a bunch of them and you'll come away saying, "Damn, those are nice people. Sure glad they don't run the world." It is still such a closed, narrow place, where everybody is white, Protestant, and agrees with everybody else. It's not unusual to find people who think, as George W. did when he lived there, that Jimmy Carter was leading the country toward "European-style socialism." A board member of the ACLU of Texas was asked recently if there had been any trouble with gay bashing in Midland. "Oh, hell, honey," she drawled, "there's not a gay in Midland who will come out of the closet for fear people will think they're Democrats."

The machismo is what I suspect is fake. Bush is just another upper-class white boy trying to prove he's tough. The minute he is questioned, he becomes testy and defensive. That's one reason they won't let him hold many press conferences. When he tells stories about his dealings with two of the toughest men who ever worked in politics -- the late Lee Atwater and the late Bob Bullock -- Bush, improbably, comes off as the toughest mother in the face-down. I wouldn't put money on it being true. Bullock, the late lieutenant governor and W's political mentor in Texas, could be and often was meaner than a skilletful of rattlesnakes. Bush's story is that one time, Bullock cordially informed him that he was about to **** him. Bush stood up and kissed Bullock, saying, "If I'm gonna get fucked, at least I should be kissed." It probably happened, but I guarantee you Bullock won the fight. Bush never got what made Bullock more than just a supermacho pol -- the old son of a bitch was on the side of the people. Mostly.

The perfect absurdity of all this, of course, is that Bush's identification with the sturdy yeomen of Midland (actually, oil-company executives almost to a man) is so wildly at variance with his real background. Bush likes to claim the difference between him and his father is that, "He went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High." He did. For one year. Then his family moved to a posh neighborhood in Houston, and he went to the second-best prep school in town (couldn't get into the best one) before going off to Andover as a legacy.

Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple," is still painfully true. Bush has simply never acknowledged that not only was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- he's been eating off it ever since. The reason there is no noblesse oblige about Dubya is because he doesn't admit to himself or anyone else that he owes his entire life to being named George W. Bush. He didn't just get a head start by being his father's son -- it remained the single most salient fact about him for most of his life. He got into Andover as a legacy. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into Harvard Business School as a courtesy (he was turned down by the University of Texas Law School). He got into the Texas Air National Guard -- and sat out Vietnam -- through Daddy's influence. (I would like to point out that that particular unit of FANGers, as regular Air Force referred to the "******* Air National Guard," included not only the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but some actual black members as well -- they just happened to play football for the Dallas Cowboys.) Bush was set up in the oil business by friends of his father. He went broke and was bailed out by friends of his father. He went broke again and was bailed out again by friends of his father; he went broke yet again and was bailed out by some fellow Yalies.

That Bush's administration is salted with the sons of somebody-or-other should come as no surprise. I doubt it has ever even occurred to Bush that there is anything wrong with a class-driven good-ol'-boy system. That would explain why he surrounds himself with people like Eugene Scalia (son of Justice Antonin Scalia), whom he named solicitor of the Department of Labor -- apparently as a cruel joke. Before taking that job, the younger Scalia was a handsomely paid lobbyist working against ergonomic regulations designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries. His favorite technique was sarcastic invective against workers who supposedly faked injuries when the biggest hazard they faced was "dissatisfaction with co-workers and supervisors." More than 5 million Americans are injured on the job every year, and more die annually from work-related causes than were killed on September 11. Neither Scalia nor Bush has ever held a job requiring physical labor.

What is the disconnect? One can see it from the other side -- people's lives are being horribly affected by the Bush administration's policies, but they make no connection between what happens to them and the decisions made in Washington. I think I understand why so many people who are getting screwed do not know who is screwing them. What I don't get is the disconnect at the top. Is it that Bush doesn't want to see? No one brought it to his attention? He doesn't care?

Okay, we cut taxes for the rich and so we have to cut services for the poor. Presumably there is some right-wing justification along the lines that helping poor people just makes them more dependent or something. If there were a rationale Bush could express, it would be one thing, but to watch him not see, not make the connection, is another thing entirely. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps -- horrors, they breed dependency. Whereas inheriting millions of dollars and having your whole life handed to you on a platter is good for the grit in your immortal soul? What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.

Bush's lies now fill volumes. He lied us into two hideously unfair tax cuts; he lied us into an unnecessary war with disastrous consequences; he lied us into the Patriot Act, eviscerating our freedoms. But when it comes to dealing with those less privileged, Bush's real problem is not deception, but self-deception.

What do you think?

Ever since their paths crossed in high school, Mother Jones contributing writer Molly Ivins has been an observer of our president. Her books about Bush include Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America and Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_559_01.html

HOUSE BANS TRANSIT DRUG-REFORM ADS


Local transit agencies allowing medical-marijuana and other kinds of drug-reform advertisements would be denied federal funding under a bill passed Monday by the House of Representatives.

Deep within the $373 billion omnibus spending bill is a paragraph that says no money from the bill can go to any bus, train or subway agency "involved directly or indirectly in any activity that promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act."

That includes marijuana, which voters in California and nine other states have decided should be available for medical use.

Drug reform advocates call the provision censorship, pure and simple. Bill Piper, associate director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, noted the same bill gives the White House $145 million to run anti-marijuana ads in 2004.

"The government can't spend taxpayer money promoting one side of the drug policy debate while prohibiting taxpayers from using their own money to promote the other side," he said. "This is censorship and not the democratic way."

Some Bay Area lawmakers agreed.

"We don't believe it is appropriate for the federal government to use the federal purse string to stifle the free-speech interests of states and local jurisdictions with regard to this issue," said Daniel Weiss, chief of staff to Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who didn't vote on the spending bill.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who voted against the bill, said, "With federal funding for mass transit already abysmally low, this measure makes a bad situation even worse."

But Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, who voted for the bill, had no problem with the provision.

"I'm familiar with arguments that some illegal substances provide therapeutic relief for individuals with certain ailments conventional treatments haven't cured," he said. "But it doesn't change the fact that the substances are illegal ."

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., inserted the provision into the catch-all spending bill after growing irked at marijuana-decriminalization ads placed in the Washington, D.C., Metro transit system by Change the Climate, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit.

bush is expanding the patriot acts and trying to get them to be a permenant fixture in the constitution.

when i said republican, i meant conservative or libertarian.

you know...

the people that want fiscally responsible spending
LESS govt intervention over both social and economic matters

Bush has done the opposite and a lot of other things most americans who respect the constitution and the bill of rights shouldn't agree with.



i mean the omnibus legislation if passed will spend several billion more on the antidrug ad campaign make it illegal for someone to put up a sign calling for the legalization of medicinal marijuana strictly even for terminally ill patients in place of less effective far more addictive and dangerous drugs. this is something that should at the very least be left up to the states.

the marriage act that bush favors and has promised to back will make amend the constitution to make it illegal for two consenting homosexual adults to wed in a secular church or through a relgious ceremony that isn't opposed to homosexual marriage. that too should atleast be left to the states


the tax cuts had a huge role in the defecits, combined they were for several hundreds of billons of dollars.

add that to the amount of pork that bush has awarded as entitlements to corporations and it becomes obvious where the money went.

the war was paid for by cutting off budgets to states, local communities, homeland security measures, education, and the other vital infrastructures mentioned about four posts above this one.

recessions are caused by weakened infrastructure, loss of jobs (which bush did nothing to address despite all the suggestions made), irresponsible fiscal spending etc which all lead to a loss of faith in businesses.

many noble peace prize winning economists came to DC specifically to protest the tax cuts as being ineffective in addressing the problems the economy faces and in many ways making it worse by not addressing the issues that need to be addressed.

I am sorry but the war on terror hardly qualifies as world war 4 (what was world war 3 by the way, the invasion of afganistan?) And I dont see how taking away even the tiniest amount judicial review or the right to a trail, evidence, at the very least a warrant before you are locked up indefinately that is promised in the bill of rights in any ways helps fight the war in terror. it really doesn't.

also how the hell does making it illegal to pay for an ad calling for the legalization of medicinal marijuana strictly even for terminally ill patients in place of less effective far more addictive and dangerous drugs achieve anything of value? all it does it restrict the freedom of speech.

Bush is ripping the constitution to shreds piece by piece and any american that doesn't have an issue with this should be ashamed of themselves.

Was it Thomas Jefferson who said that a man willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither? The ironic thing is that the liberties that bush is taking away aren't in anyway making this country more secure etiher.

mark

originally posted by pistoff...

Rumsfeld Backed Saddam Even After Chemical Attacks
By Andrew Buncombe
The Independent UK

Wednesday 24 December 2003

Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.

The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.

The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and "to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing".

Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.

Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds - particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 - as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.

But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.

In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq's use of such chemical weapons. But realising that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Mr Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over.

In a briefing memo to Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America's interests remained "in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq".

The memo adds: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

Exactly what Mr Rumsfeld, who at the time did not hold government office, told Mr Aziz on 26 March 1984, remains unclear and minutes from the meeting remain classified. No one from Mr Rumsfeld's office was available to comment yesterday.

It was not Mr Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq. Four months earlier, in December 1983, he had visited Saddam and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. When news of this visit was revealed last year, Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had "cautioned" Saddam to stop using chemical weapons.

When documents about the meeting disclosed he had said no such thing, a spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue with Mr Aziz.

America's relationship with Iraq at a time when Saddam was using chemical weapons is well-documented but rarely reported.

During the war with Iran, America provided combat assistance to Iraq that included intelligence on Iranian deployments and bomb-damage assessments. In 1987-88 American warships destroyed Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf and broke the blockade of Iraqi shipping lanes.

Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that obtained the documents, told The New York Times: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and it didn't make any difference to US policy. The embrace of Saddam and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances."

Last night, Danny Muller, a spokesman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the documents revealed America's "blatant hypocrisy". He added: "This is not an isolated event. Continuing administrations have said 'we will do business'. I am surprised that Donald Rumsfeld does not resign right now."

why i'm convinced that dean can beat bush http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16688

President Howard Dean
Carl F. Worden

When I wrote, "Another One-Termer Like Dad?" several months ago, I began my treatise with the words, "If the Democrats play their cards right, and if President George W. Bush extends the federal Assault Weapon Ban that was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, then I am going to predict that George W. Bush will be a one-term war-hero president just like his father."
Well, whether by hook or crook, and whether intended or not, the Democrats are playing their cards right. That article and my predictions were right on the money, even to extent that I foretold, "If the Democrats do something truly stupid, like run a raving liberal like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton for president, then Bush 43 has maybe an even chance. But if the Democrats run a moderate, southern pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper, then I can predict with complete confidence that a Democrat, or possibly even a third-party candidate, will occupy the White House after the next presidential election."

Get ready for President Howard Dean. No he's not a moderate, southern pro-gun candidate. Instead, he's a former Vermont governor from the north. Everything else falls right into line: He is a moderate Democrat who is also a pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

Dean is adamantly against the war in Iraq. Dean is conservatively pro-gun. Dean is soft on abortion and he is a moderate Democrat socialist to the extent that he believes government is responsible for taking care of those who are either mentally or physically unable to care for themselves. In that light, he's the perfect candidate to take residence in the White House following the coming November elections.

Unless Howard Dean screws up in some spectacular way, or unless Dean dies in another suspicious airplane accident, Howard Dean will be the next president of the United States. Mark my words.

Dean is the perfect candidate for election in 2004. George W. Bush has divided the Republican Party into two distinct groups. They comprise the phony and fascist Neo-Conservatives who mistakenly embraced the perpetually wrong philosophy that the ends justify the means, ala Clinton. To them, if Clinton could get away with it, why shouldn't they? Their error has manifested itself via a disastrous war on Iraq that was never constitutionally declared by Congress, and the blatantly and irrefutably unconstitutional Patriot Act.

Both the moderate Democrats and the true American Christian conservatives have found themselves in surprising and stunning agreement on these issues.

If you leave out religious conviction ala the abortion debate, which is entirely the province of the judiciary at this time anyway, and hone in on constitutional principle only, moderate Democrats and right-wing, true Christian conservatives, are in unexpected agreement: We have yet another Viet Nam on our hands, and our kids are being unnecessarily killed as a result of it.

History will prove those kids died in vain, just like all those 58,000 kids killed in Viet Nam: Viet Nam is still a communist nation, and we have reinstated full diplomatic and trade relations with them. In that light, every one of those kids died for NOTHING, and the same will be said of those being killed right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The true American conservatives who once commanded the Republican Party, are horrified by what Bush has done, and many of them, including myself, have vowed never to support Bush again, even if we have to vote for a third party candidate that has little chance of winning.

To the truly committed, truly Christian conservative, George W. Bush is a traitor, a completely phony Christian, and just another politician who placed his left hand on the Bible, raised his right hand to God, and swore to uphold and defend a Constitution he had every intention of violating - if the "situation" warranted it.

If there is one thing that true conservatives share, it is their solid and unwavering conviction to do what is both lawful and right, both under the law, and in the eyes of our God. In that light, our current president is woefully unfaithful, and in fact, treasonous to our Constitution.

A president who personally declares a United States citizen an enemy combatant, ineligible for legal counsel or to face his accusers and their evidence against him, even though he was arrested on U.S. soil and never carried a weapon against U.S. forces or their allies, is a domestic enemy of the people of the United States. True Christian conservatives understood that the moment he issued the order.

True Americans with solid constitutional convictions were outraged by that, and they immediately knew they had a problem in the White House. I don't know what Howard Dean's religious convictions, if any, hold to. But it doesn't matter in this case. Here we have a pro-gun candidate who is against this disastrous war in Iraq, and he is a candidate intent on principle to uphold he personal convictions. I like him, and for the first time in my life, I will vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean, to be my next president next November.

If he's still alive.

Carl F. Worden

bump

ye110man



they may theoretically back lower taxes, smaller govt, and national security. they may use the american flag and christian cross as symbols.

but in reality, they don't back any of these.

bush's so called tax cuts predominantly went to businesses as entitlements and did nothing to stimulate jobs, and the federal defecit created by them will increase property taxes, weaken the economy, and will in the long run cost americans more money. the tax cuts will cost tax payers more than they got back.

smaller govt, yeah right, bush expanded the federal govt's role and bueracracy in just about eveyr issue and went on to drastically cut state and local funding effectively weakening state govts.

bush cut funding to almost every aspect of national security from fire departments to police. he made the rest of the world hate us with his unilateral missions. and he costed the lives of many american soldgers.

there is nothing patriotic about the patriot acts and many other policies bush backs that block freedom of expression, privacy, legal rights, state's rights etc. he's desecrating the constitution.

the cross symbolizes more than christianity, it symbolizes inclusiveness, and tolerance for others as well. his cuts to poverty, cut of unemployment benefits, distribution of tax cuts to screw over the poor aren't compassionate. his backing of an amendment backing sodomy laws, gay marriage etc. aren't favored by several christians. his policies are neither tolerant or compassionate.

pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative party is the democrats marketing strategy. and it's their best chance of beating bush.

since i compiled all this information, i'm biased to favor all of it...

but IF YOU'RE DEDICATED TO BUSH LOSING, it would be worthwhile for a second person (one who isn't biased to all the issues and is pretty in tune with how american people think - a claim i wish i could make) to narrow the issues brought up here to the issues that are most likely to piss off most americans including conservatives, and list them including lots of supporting data for them. then i'll help design a series of posters, one highlighting each issue.

through help of insiders like jjorge, i think we can post copies of the posters on sites like blogforamerica so that people can print them out and put them up all over their neighborhood. this is the very essence of a grassroots movements.

as long as the issues brought up really do matter to the american people, and there is plenty of specific information on how bush opposes these issues, A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY FROM REELECTING BUSH.

posted by jjorge

From: 'Our So-Called Boom'
By Paul Krugman NYT 12-30-03


"...So if jobs are scarce and wages are flat, who's benefiting from the economy's expansion? The direct gains are going largely to corporate profits, which rose at an annual rate of more than 40 percent in the third quarter. Indirectly, that means that gains are going to stockholders, who are the ultimate owners of corporate profits. (That is, if the gains don't go to self-dealing executives, but let's save that topic for another day.)

Well, so what? Aren't we well on our way toward becoming what the administration and its reliable defenders call an "ownership society," in which everyone shares in stock market gains? Um, no. It's true that slightly more than half of American families participate in the stock market, either directly or through investment accounts. But most families own at most a few thousand dollars' worth of stocks.

A good indicator of the share of increased profits that goes to different income groups is the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the share of the corporate profits tax that falls, indirectly, on those groups. According to the most recent estimate, only 8 percent of corporate taxes were paid by the poorest 60 percent of families, while 67 percent were paid by the richest 5 percent, and 49 percent by the richest 1 percent. ("Class warfare!" the right shouts.) So a recovery that boosts profits but not wages delivers the bulk of its benefits to a small, affluent minority.

The bottom line, then, is that for most Americans, current economic growth is a form of reality TV, something interesting that is, however, happening to other people. This may change if serious job creation ever kicks in, but it hasn't so far.

The big question is whether a recovery that does so little for most Americans can really be sustained. Can an economy thrive on sales of luxury goods alone? We may soon find out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

Despite what the GOP does as opposed what they preach, they are master marketers and that's all that matters in elections. Most of us here believe that on any given issue the left is right and the right is wrong and I think that in a party-blind political taste test the Democrats would win but the Democratic party is just terrible at marketing.

Is our strategy just to be anti-Bush? There's plenty of that already. This year the electability of the candidate is going to be mostly about patriotism/leadership and, for many Americans especially in the south, religion. That's why I support Clark. Nobody can claim that he's unpatriotic or lacks leadership. Out of the debates that I saw, he was the only one that even mentioned "the good Lord."

If Dean gets the nod, we'll have a harder time marketing him to moderates and you can forget conservatives. The south can be written off. The left won't leave though some on the far left may leave once he wins and begins to relocate closer to the center. It's going to be a tightrope walk. How could he position himself to appear to be a patriotic leader with some Christian foundation but not too much? Both he and Bush are draft dodgers why should the American people trust Dean?

I completely overhauled this thread to make my points clearer and more organized, please rescan over my initial three posts.