0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
firstthought
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:47 am
bush
georgeob1 wrote:
First Thought,

A fair, but modest, attempt at a put down. A bit patronizing. The pedantic flourish at the end was merely a distracting bit of puffery. Love those rolling eyes.


George I am just a simple fellow who seeks truth after the fashion of Socrates, condescension is over my head : which ring finger-- or other-- do you wish me to kiss.

ft Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Tra la la Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Tra la la
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:08 am
pasted complete for those who don't like to watch a ten second ad...

Quote:
"You can't run the world on faith"
Some Reagan conservatives decry Bush's "Messianic" approach and preference for dogma over evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James K. Galbraith



Oct. 18, 2004 | I knew Bruce Bartlett well when we were young antagonists over the Reagan revolution. He was deputy director of the congressional Joint Economic Committee, head of the Republican staff, and a supply-side point man on Capitol Hill. I was his counterpart, working for the beleaguered Democrats under Rep. Henry Reuss. At a personal level we got along. But Bruce was an ideologue, or so I thought; and I suspect he thought the same of me.

Now 53, Bartlett said this the other day to Ron Suskind, as he reported in his New York Times magazine story:


"Just in the past few months, I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to [President] Bush; that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do ... This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them ... This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts ... He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms the need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence ... But you can't run the world on faith."

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in 1981. A former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, Roberts was chief propagandist for the tax-cutting juggernaut, armed with preposterous arguments about the effects of lower tax rates on the work, savings and investment behavior of the rich. I didn't think too much of him then.

Roberts is now a John M. Olin Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. Here is part of the column he sent out on Oct. 15:

"Bush's supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. -- truths now firmly established by the Bush administration's own reports -- as treasonous America-bashing ... In language reeking with hatred, Heritage Foundation Town Hall readers impolitely informed me that opposing the invasion of Iraq is identical to opposing America, that Bush is the greatest American leader in history and everyone who disagrees with him should be shot before they cause America to lose another war ... Bush's conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country."

Jude Wanniski, author of "The Way the World Works," was in many ways the leading supply-side intellectual during the Reagan era. Wanniski was devoted to the operation of a free market-economy, purer than any that ever existed in the real world: perfectly free trade, the elimination of taxes on capital and profit, and a return to the gold standard.

Here is what Wanniski wrote recently about Bush after the third debate:

"I asked my golfing buddy, Jim Biondi, 84, a lifelong Republican, how he thought President Bush did last night in the debate with Senator Kerry. He frowned and said Mr. Bush did not do that well. I agreed, and he asked why I thought Mr. Bush did not do well. 'He is basically uninformed on important issues,' I said."

All three of these men remain highly conservative. Bartlett has become a budget realist, stating frankly that taxes will rise in the next administration because they have to. Thus, he correctly argues, the choice is whether they should go up on capital and the wealthy, as they would under John Kerry -- or on consumption and the poor, as they would under Bush. Roberts has become an economic nationalist in the Pat Buchanan mold, mourning the loss of manufacturing jobs and writing stridently against free trade. Wanniski holds much the same economic views he always did.

And how are these three Reagan conservatives going to vote this year? I don't know. I haven't asked them. And so far as I know they haven't said in public. But their recent words speak powerfully to the emerging political divide in America today. It isn't left against right, rich against poor or North against South. It's reason against certitude. It's evidence against dogma. It's a willingness to argue facts against a refusal to brook doubt.

Welcome to the coalition of the reality-based.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/18/disillusioned_republicans/
0 Replies
 
firstthought
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:29 am
Elections
Early casting of the vote in FLORIDA

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Voting-Early.html?hp&ex=1098158400&en=82148f7a0a083d18&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley

ft Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 07:30 pm
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows:

Quote:
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing. --Pat Buchanan


More at: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2004 09:39 pm
Oh dear, I'm sure Buchanan's opinion will sway undecideds for Bush. It's especially interesting because it was Buchanan himself, along with Pat Robertson that turned the tide and put the finishing touches on a win for Bill Clinton. Pat and Pat got up and spoke at the Repub convention in 92, and it was at this very point the concept of "mean conservatives" began to circulate and.....poof, George H. W. Bush was history. History, just like his son is soon to be.

................and a particularly destructive part of our history, as well.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:35 am
Wanna put some money - or something - on that Lola?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 07:57 am
Paul O'Neil on the present White House...

Quote:
These people have very long memories and they're as nasty as they come

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/20/ron_suskind/index.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:21 am
Pat Robertson on CNN quoting Bush...

"'And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' Robertson said the president then told him, 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.'"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:28 am
Axis of Evil member Iran endorses Bush for another four years! Huzzah!

Quote:
The head of Iran's security council said today the re-election of President George W. Bush would be in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations Iran harbours Al Qaeda terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

Toronto Star

Can Pyongyang be far behind?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:57 am
A friend of my enemy is my enemy.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 09:15 am
edited due to popular opinion
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:20 am
Quote:
"Bush Relatives for Kerry" grew out of a series of conversations that took place between a group of people that have two things in common: they are all related to George Walker Bush, and they are all voting for John Kerry.

As the election approaches, we feel it is our responsibility to speak out about why we are voting for John Kerry, and to do our small part to help America heal from the sickness it has suffered since George Bush was appointed President in 2000. We invite you to read our stories, and please, don't vote for our cousin!


Because blood is thinner than oil![/i]
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:36 pm
au1929 wrote:
A friend of my enemy is my enemy.


Yepp, so much for our cosy relationship with Iran.
0 Replies
 
kwik k
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:54 pm
Edit: (Moderator) - Do not post your own links.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:59 am
Lola wrote:
edited due to popular opinion


Now you've made me curious as to what was originally in that post.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 06:32 am
BUSH MISLEADS ON CASUALTIES IN IRAQ

The president has told the American people that he expected persistent violence in Iraq. On Feb. 8th, 2004, Tim Russert asked President Bush: "Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?" Bush replied, "No. I'm not."[1] According to Pat Robertson, there is no way that could be true.

Appearing yesterday on CNN, Robertson said that just before the war he "warned him about this war...I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.'"[2] Bush then told Robertson, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."[3] More than 1,100 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and another 8,000 troops have been wounded.[4]

Sources:

1. "Transcript for February 8th 'Meet the Press'," MSNBC, 2/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63938.
2. "Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties," CNN, 10/20/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63939.
3. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63939.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=63939.


And as usual the White House spokesman denies all. Would Robertson a Bush supporter be lying? I guess it is just another day at the office for this administration.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 06:35 am
Welcome kwik k to a2k.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 07:49 pm
Quote:
Wanna put some money - or something - on that Lola?


Don't you have something else to do with your money, or your "something" than to lose it to me over a foolish bet, george? Laughing

Look at this..........typical.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04294/398767.stm

Quote:
Campaign 2004: Voter registration workers cry foul
Wednesday, October 20, 2004

By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

An ostensibly nonpartisan voter registration drive in Western Pennsylvania has triggered accusations that workers were cheated out of wages and given instructions to avoid adding anyone to the voter rolls who might support the Democratic presidential nominee.

Sproul & Associates, a consulting firm based in Chandler, Ariz., hired to conduct the drive by the Republican National Committee, employed several hundred canvassers throughout the state to register new voters. Some workers yesterday said they were told to avoid registering Democrats or anyone who indicated support for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry.

"We were told that if they wanted to register Democrat, there was no way we were to register them to vote," said Michele Tharp, of Meadville, who said she was sent out to canvass door-to-door and outside businesses in Meadville, Crawford County. "We were only to register Republicans."

Tharp said volunteers were sent door-to-door to seek registrants but were instructed to first ask prospective new voters which candidate they planned to support.

"If they said Kerry, we were just supposed to say thank you and walk away," Tharp said.

Brenda Snyder, a volunteer with the Republican Victory Center in Erie said workers "absolutely never" were told not to register Democrats. She said some workers were not paid "because of discrepancies in their paychecks" and said the party was attempting to correct the problem. Tharp, for instance, said she was paid only $14 for 15 hours of work after being hired at a rate of $11 per hour.

Heather Layman, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, confirmed Sproul's role in the effort and said that complaints by 45 to 50 workers who had not been paid had been straightened out. Layman denied that the canvassers avoided registering Democrats and suggested that Democrats were orchestrating the charges.

"I do smell politics here if that's what they're saying," Layman said.

Much of the controversy yesterday centered on the registration drive in Crawford County, where canvassers claimed to be owed thousands of dollars after hunting out Bush supporters.

"If they were a Kerry voter, we were just supposed to walk away," said Michael Twilla, of Meadville, who said he has been paid for only eight of 72 hours he worked.

Twilla provided the Post-Gazette with a copy of the script he said he had been given.

It instructs the canvassers to hand unregistered Bush supporters a clipboard with a registration form, and to advise them the canvassers will personally deliver the forms to the local courthouse.

A lower portion of the form also advises the canvassers to ask undecided voters two questions: "Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro life?" and "Are you worried about the Democrats raising taxes?" If voters say they are pro-life, the form says, "Ask if they are registered to vote. If they are pro-choice, say thank you and walk away."

The form also tells canvassers, "If anyone asks who you are working for, it's 'Project America Vote.' "

America Votes, whose name is similar, is a self-described nonpartisan voter registration organization sponsored by generally liberal-leaning groups.

Several canvassers said they had been instructed to skip the lower portion of the form and others said they were told to say they were working for a local employment agency.

Twilla said the canvassers were told to say they worked for Career Concepts, a local employment agency. Career Concepts was contracted by a Florida firm, Apple One, to assist them in locating temporary employees. A spokeswomen for Career Concepts last night said her firm did not employ the canvassers.

Sproul's role in voter registration drives this month triggered official investigations in several other states, with canvassers alleging they had been told to discard Democratic registration forms, leaving voters who thought they had registered off the rolls.

The firm has a contract with the Republican National Committee to register new voters and has operated using the name Voters Outreach of America. Sproul's chairman, Nathan Sproul, is a former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party.

The firm attracted attention in Pittsburgh last month when Sproul employees called a Carnegie Library official to request space outside the buildings to register voters.

Holly McCullough, special assistant to the library director, said a woman from the firm said they were working for America Votes, the nonpartisan but liberal leaning organization.

McCullough said she agreed to allow the group to set up at the libraries.

"I said there has to be no issue advocacy. It has to do nonpartisan voter registration and they said that was right," McCullough said. Instead, several days later, McCullough received a call from Ryan Hughes, director of the Woods Run library branch, saying patrons had complained about the behavior of the canvassers.

Hughes said a patron came in the library Sept. 7 "and said 'There's this person out there asking me who I was voting for.' "But McCullough said she also became concerned because she discovered that Sproul was not working for America Votes, and that the registration drive was being organized by the Republican Party.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dennis Roddy can be reached at 412-263-1965 or at [email protected]
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 03:34 am
It really is time you guys got rid of this crowd of lying bastards
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/politics/22intel.html
0 Replies
 
stoplearning
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2004 03:48 am
And replace it with what....


Thats Right!! Another Crowd of lying bastards. If you think lying is characteristic of Rebublicans only than I must call you Naive; Indoctrinated perhaps. A product.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 06:29:51