Bush feeds the American people baloney.

This pretty much sums up what I thought about the speech.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040903_315.html

Mr. Bush's Acceptance Speech
NY Times Editorial

Published: September 3, 2004

When President Bush accepted his party's nomination last night, he energetically presented himself as the man who could keep America safe in a time of international terrorism. His handlers believe that is the key to his re-election. But if Mr. Bush intends to have a second term, he needs to do something more - particularly if he hopes to win by more than 500 votes this time. The president needs to speak to the large number of moderate voters who feel that things have been going in the wrong direction over the last four years, and convince them that he has the capacity to learn from mistakes and do better. On that count, his acceptance speech fell short.

Despite the enormous changes the United States has undergone since the last election, from terror attacks to recession, Mr. Bush has been sticking resolutely to the priorities he brought into the office in 2001. He won his tax cuts and his education initiative. American foreign policy managed to wind up focused on the same country on which Mr. Bush and his advisers had fixated from the beginning.

Each of those policies has cost the nation dearly: the tax cuts have exploded the budget deficit, Mr. Bush has failed to finance his education programs adequately, and the war in Iraq has been fumbled from the day Baghdad fell. Nobody expected the president to admit that any of his initiatives had turned out to be less than smashing successes, but wavering voters might have been buoyed by at least a hint that the administration realizes that the course needs adjustment.

Instead, the president presented troubled, half-finished initiatives like his prescription drug plan as fully completed tasks, just as he presented the dangerous and chaotic situation in Iraq as a picture of triumphant foreign policy on a par with the Marshall Plan. He tossed out a combination of extremely vague concepts - like creating an ownership society - along with small-bore ideas like additional college scholarships. The combination of minor thoughts and squishy generalities was typical of John Kerry's convention speech as well. But Mr. Bush's contribution doesn't raise many hopes for the level of campaign discussion to come.

The president, who dropped his laudable attempt to begin desperately needed immigration reform as soon as he ran into political resistance, gave the idea not a mention last night. There was no hint that he realizes his "uniter, not a divider" vow ran aground on the administration's insistence on right-wing judicial nominees and inflexibility on social issues like stem cell research.

There was nothing in the speech last night that suggested a new era of frankness from the White House, or hope that any of those fundamental problems would be approached with anything but the "my way or the highway" attitude Mr. Bush has used on issues like tax cuts and Iraq.

If Mr. Bush is rigid in his policies, he is remarkably flexible in marketing them. Once again, the Republican convention has led with its left, with a parade of prime-time speakers from what might be called the far moderate side of the party. Aside from a bizarre and nasty assault on Mr. Kerry by Senator Zell Miller, a registered Democrat, the tough talk was left mainly to the vice president.

It was depressing to hear Dick Cheney, who spoke on Wednesday night, repeat his crowd-pleasing snipe against Senator Kerry for calling for "a more sensitive war on terror." It was a phony criticism, given that Mr. Bush has used almost identical language in the past. But, worse, it signaled that Mr. Cheney and the administration's other hit men will spend the next two months trying to sell their failed approach to foreign policy, and encouraging Americans to believe that anyone who acknowledges that the United States needs to take a more patient and humble approach to the world is in league with the girlie men.

The NY Times editorial hit the nail on the head in its analysis of his speech today: No sense of any mistakes made, same agenda now as when he started in 2000, taking credit for initiatives (e.g., economic, educational, Medicare drug benefit) that are hardly finished or successful.

Well, now that the self-congratulation is off the airways, let the real games begin!

Make mine peppered pastrami on wheat.

Sliced paper-thin and piled about four inches high.

Some a that spicy brown mustard please.

Sauerkraut, yes, thanks.

Everything else on the side.

Chips.

Yes, I'll have one of those cinnamon-oatmeal-raisin-walnut cookies also.

Damn, those New York delis...

Sorry to digress, au.

I haven't eaten any baloney since I was a kid.

I believe Nixon was President.

Feel the Hate

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 3, 2004

"I don't know where George Soros gets his money," one man said. "I don't know where - if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." George Soros, another declared, "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin." After all, a third said, Mr. Soros "is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."

They aren't LaRouchies - they're Republicans.

The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it.

The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ.

For many months we've been warned by tut-tutting commentators about the evils of irrational "Bush hatred." Pundits eagerly scanned the Democratic convention for the disease; some invented examples when they failed to find it. Then they waited eagerly for outrageous behavior by demonstrators in New York, only to be disappointed again.

There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden.

Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval.

Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).

The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named.

Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.

That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Mr. Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Mr. Soros.

It's also why Mr. Hastert, who knows how little the Bush administration has done to protect New York and help it rebuild, has accused the city of an "unseemly scramble" for cash after 9/11. Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist. Early rumors were that the invocation would be given by Jerry Falwell, who suggested just after 9/11 that the attack was God's punishment for the activities of the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way, among others. But Ms. Dew is no more moderate: earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler.

The party made sure to put social moderates like Rudy Giuliani in front of the cameras. But in private events, the story was different. For example, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas told Republicans that we are in a "culture war" and urged a reduction in the separation of church and state.

Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.

Wait, so does I have to go to the deli to pick up my baloney, or does it come to my crib?

Respek.

When it comes to the vote in November, I think the American public will remember the timeless words of their great leader:-

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame...er...what was...er...don't fool me again."

PDiddie
Actually I have never liked baloney. Either from the Deli or politicians. A roast beef sandwich on deli rye slathered with brown Deli mustard always hits the spot. Just as I like meat in my sandwich I would appreciate getting meat from politicians, not baloney.

Well I'm sorry, believe me I really am sorry. But despite intelligent people seeing through Bush like a hot knife cuts through butter, they're not enough of them. Bush will win by a landslide. Mark my words. People will be astonished that the Democratic vote failed to turn up.

And people will say "you know that steve 41oo fella on a2k told us way back in september"

but then of course I hope I'm wrong.

"The best democracy money can buy".

Just wondering, but if the rest of the world had a vote, would W get any support at all from non US citizens?

I've never known a President to be held in such low esteem by simply EVERYONE. Normally you would expect the British establishment to look rather favourably on a mega rich American who happens to be President of the US, even if he did come from Texas, but I get the impression he is detested by whole swathes of British society where you might expect support.

I cant even think of a newspaper which has come out in support of Bush.

There will some papers who do endorse Bush. But there will be others that endorsed him in 2000, but not again. One is the Seattle Times, which has already endorsed Kerry.

Sorry Dart, meant Brit papers

To me what went on in New York reminded one of a KKK or Aryan Nation rally. Rather than a convention to "nominate" a candidate for the presidency of the US.The hate was dripping from their fangs.

duplicate

steve

Many papers here in Canada do support Bush, some more mildly than others. But these are almost all possession of the Asper family (purchased from Conrad Black, who had taken them right, and the Aspers have followed that direction).

This isn't simply pro-business, which is part of the equation. They are pro-American particularly as regards the Israel/Palestinian issue.

You've probably been reading of the SEC report just down on Hollinger (Black's company) and how it tore into, particularly, three people for their greed (and very possible fraudulent behavior) in lining their own pockets...Black, his chief operating manager Radler, and board member Richard Perle. Radler lives here in Vancouver. Two days ago he described this SEC report as being "anti-Semitic". And we know, of course, about Perle's part in the administration's war on Iraq.

Here's a bit on this story...
http://www.slate.com/id/2106175/

Blatham didnt know that thanks.

Here its reported Black stole £200m from Hollinger, a figure I find hard to credit btw. Meanwhile Black's British newspaper the Daily Telegraph continues to print pro Israel drivel by his viciously Zionist wife Amiel (sp?)

Black seems to be a founder member of the North American Likudniks. Remarkable throwback to Robert Maxwell another unsavory newspaper owner who most people had no idea was Jewish until he was buried on the Temple Mount within a day or so of his death. (Fell off his yacht aparantly).

A friend of mine told me this story about Maxwell. He was employed to fire staff at the Daily Mirror. Maxwell berated him for not being ruthless enough. Then a boy came in with a message. "How much do you earn lad?" says Maxwell. He told him. So now your fired and here's your redundancy pay (reaches down to draw for bundle of cash). "Thats how to do it" says Maxwell. My friend says but sir he wasn't a Mirror employee.

Dont know about you but I just yawn now when theft is described as anti semitic, or criticism of the government of Israel is anti Jewish.

Yeah I'm not anti-semitic but it makes ya fink dunnit. Shirley Porter, Robert Maxwell, Conrad Black.

Anyway, we're off the theme. Rep convention, I found upsetting. So many straw men . Scaremongering, attack Kerry, indulge in dishonourable criticism. How many of these patriots will be gleeful over Bill Clinton in hospital? Not a few, I'll wager.

Did enjoy hearing about the satirical street theatre: "Billionaires for Bush"

"We don't care about the poor,
Let's go start another war!"