![](http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040721/capt.jfmo10407210041.bush_jfmo104.jpg")
Posted on 07/30/2004 5:52:21 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
President Bush (news - web sites) looks around as he visits his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., Wednesday, July 21, 2004. On a day filled with official events, Bush squeezed in the campaign visit to thank staff for their hard work. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The Challenges of Our Time
This week Democrats have gathered in Boston to attack our President and nominate the most liberal ticket in history. As they spread their pessimistic message we need your help to set the record straight.
When you talk to your friends and neighbors about this campaign, remind them that President George W. Bush has led us from a recession to the fastest growing economy in the world and 1.5 million new jobs. Remind them that when terrorists brought war to our homeland, President Bush has led a relentless campaign against the enemies that struck our homeland.
These last three-and-a-half years have brought some serious challenges to our nation. We are meeting those challenges with strength and resolve. And today, the American people can be confident of a better future, a stronger economy, and a nation that is more secure, because of the character and the leadership of George W. Bush.
John Kerry and his allies will spend over $500 million in negative advertising and get out the vote efforts this election year. The President and I need your help to counter their efforts. Will you help us spread the President's positive message and the truth about his record of accomplishment by making a contribution of $1000, $500, $250, $100 or even $50 today at www.GeorgeWBush.com/Cheney/?
President Bush has led this nation with strength and resolve as we confront the terrorist threat. In the war on terror, we will always seek cooperation from our allies around the world. But as the President has made very clear: There is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. The United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
These are not times for leaders who shift with the political winds -- saying one thing one day and another, the next. Senator Kerry's position on big issues often depends on when you ask him.
When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry voted yes. This year, when it served his political purposes, he described himself as an opponent of the war.
When it came time to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for body armor and other vital support, Kerry and Edwards both voted no, even though Senator Kerry said such a vote would be "irresponsible." Senator Kerry then explained that, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
We need a President who will back our troops 100 percent, and that's exactly the kind of President we have.
There is no doubt that great events will turn on this election. The leader who sits in the Oval Office will set the course of the war on terror, and set the direction of the American economy. Strong, consistent leadership is required.
Our economy has been tested these past three-and-a-half years, and we have responded with strong, decisive action. When we were elected to office, the economy was sliding toward recession. Then, on 9/11, terrorists struck our nation and shook our economy once again. We faced a basic decision -- to leave more money with families and businesses, or to take more of your tax dollars for the federal government. President Bush made his choice. He proposed and delivered tax relief -- not once, not twice, but three times.
As a result, America has had the fastest growing economy in the world. Individuals and families have received an average of $1,500 a year in tax relief. You're using that money far better than we would have in Washington, and we did the right thing by returning it.
Quality jobs have been created for 10 consecutive months, adding more than 1.5 million new jobs. National home ownership is at a record high. Productivity is high. Incomes are rising. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. And in the last year, our economy has grown at a rate of nearly 5 percent. The American people are proving the pessimists wrong, and the Bush tax cuts are working.
We recognize there are still challenges, and we'll keep moving forward with a comprehensive pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda.
Our opponents have a different vision for the economy. They talk a lot about jobs, yet they never explain how they would put a single American back to work. Their big idea for the economy: raise our taxes.
In fact, they would repeal many of the Bush tax cuts within their first hundred days in office. This isn't surprising when you consider their record. Over the years, Senator Kerry has voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people.
On issue after issue, the choice on November 2nd will be clear. On national security, it's a choice between our President, a man of steadfast resolve, and his opponent, who wavers with the political winds. On the economy, it's a choice between our President, who has taken action and led America to days of progress and opportunity, and his opponent, who would take us backward. On the values of this great country, it's a choice between our President, who has fought for and supported these values, and his opponent, rated as the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
On all these issues, we welcome the contest ahead, and we know, with your help, it is a contest we will win.
Sincerely,
Dick Cheney
Good morning!
I'm anxiously awaiting the show Growing Up Gotti. (not!)
From Lucianne this morning:
"He is a deeply unlikable guy: arrogant, dull, pompous, mannered, self-righteous" Andrew Sullivan.
"Howard Dean with medals" - John Podhoretz
... pedestrian address, uninspiring, cliched, and humorless" - Jeff Jacoby
"Kerry, the sultan of Yada.... said absolutely zilch of substance" - Andrea Peyser
"The man has more facets than a disco ball" - Jonah Goldberg
"John Kerry once administered CPR to a hamster. This was one of the poignant vignettes we learned tonight from one of his daughters. Is there some gerbil-loving swing demographic out there we are trying to connect with?" - Barbara Comstock
"What did this man do as an adult? Kerry's biography ends at 24" - Dick Morris
"This isn't your father's JFK" - Jed Babbin
Whoa! kinda harsh there.
I just don't see how anyone could vote for those two.
I hope you all got to see MamaT doing the 'air violin' last night at the Boston Pops.
And keep your eye on Vanessa Kerry and Edwards, I think she's sweet on him.
Though I think Kerry scored last night, there are at least two areas where he left a big opening for Bush/Rove: Israel and "imminent threat".
He didn't utter the word "Israel". Big mistake. Watch for the GOP to take advantage by staying tough on Arafat and Arab leaders regarding Israel and democracy in the Middle East.
As for "imminent threat", the GOP should use N. Korea as illustration. NK is an imminent threat because the Dims trusted-without-verifying while NK developed nukes and WMD. Now our hands are tied...we're faced with a nuclear enemy. Kerry now says Iraq wasn't "imminent". The GOP must hammer home the point that, after 9/11, waiting for "imminence" is a recipe for disaster. Can this argument be boiled down enough for the "undecideds" to understand? I think it can.
One other response I never hear coming out of pubbies has to do with those "allies" Kerry's always talking about. They'll never come along as long as they believe the USA is the terrorists' main target. They can hold our coat while we do all the heavy lifting....and that's not going to change unless the evil-doers target them.
The only woman on the campaign trail that makes hillary look slender.
KERRY ADVISOR ON VOTE AGAINST $87 BILLION IRAQ/ AFGHANISTAN TROOP FUNDING: "Off the record he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record he has an elaborate explanation." (Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04)
GOP website about Dem convention, demsextrememakeover.com
Thread about the balloon snafu, dammit! here.
Peggy Noonan turned some nice phrases in the column Endeavor linked at the last thread:
Ted Kennedy seemed ponderous and heavy. With his new round glasses he looks like old pictures of his father if his father had grown corpulent. ...
Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech was an odd and interesting mix, just like Teresa Heinz Kerry. She is such a distinctive personality, so unusual as a presidential candidate's wife, that when she began to thank the delegates in five languages a friend asked me with some alarm if she was speaking in tongues.
Speaking of the Dems' new best friend, sperm donor Steve Bing:
A SCANDAL might be brewing in John Kerry's camp over revelations that his biggest donor, billionaire playboy Steve Bing, has close ties to a Mafia hitman. Bing, who inherited a $600 million real estate fortune courtesy of his grandfather, Leo Bing, has amassed over $16 million for the Democrats. He has donated $8.1 million to groups that are creating and airing anti-George Bush TV ads, according to Variety. Now, ABC News reports that one of Bing's close friends is Dominic Montemarano, a.k.a. Donnie Shacks, a New York-based Mafia hit man who did 12 years in prison on racketeering charges and is currently serving four years for domestic violence. rest of story at PageSix.
Name that Dem:
WHICH prickly Democratic senator who has endured a week of bad press called a New York TV reporter an off-color term for the male anatomy when he bumped into him at the breakfast buffet line of the Park Plaza Hotel? "Senator, did you just call me a [bleep]?" the broadcaster blurted. "Yes, I did," snapped the senator, who was still smarting over a tough question at a press conference. (PageSix)
More scoop:
WE HEAR . . . THAT former candidate Howard Dean was bounced when he tried to horn in on a chat between Tom Daschle and U2's Bono in a private meeting room under the stage at the Prudential Center . . . THAT the DNC made Al-Jazeera take down its banner at the Fleet Center even though the Arab TV network is broadcasting 90 minutes of coverage a night to viewers in the Middle East, more than any of the big American networks.
SUSAN Estrich threw a hissy fit Wednesday when she learned that her assigned seat at a cozy little Tina Brown lunch at Radius wasn't next to somebody glamorous, but a Secret Service agent. Sources say that Brown's exclusive gathering in honor of Hillary Clinton was overbooked and that Estrich wasn't even invited. But she walked in and asked for a seat, insisting she'd RSVP'd. Estrich, a familiar TV talking head, took a look at the agent next to her and told staff that unless she had a better companion, she would walk out. "Bye bye," they said, and Estrich beat a hasty retreat.
"Unflattering" is about the most flattering thing one can say about Liz's ensemble. The scallops don't help, either.
Meanwhile, the WashPost has done a fashion article on Kerry's bunny suit.
With such care given to image management, it is all the more jolting that Kerry could make such a terrible miscalculation during his recent visit aboard the orbiter Discovery at Cape Canaveral. He donned a pale blue jumpsuit and hood to enter the craft, which was being prepared for a space shuttle mission. The ensemble, which looked like a cross between surgical scrubs and a bunny suit, is worn in laboratories to maintain a clean environment. Such suits are standard in Hollywood films in which the hero visits the lab of the mild-mannered scientist whose research will ultimately save the world. But note that it is the lab rat who wears the suit, not the hero. He stands strong and resolute, throwing off clouds of testosterone while absorbing dire warnings.In this age of image, the very mention of the lab suit should have set off flashing red lights and screaming sirens. No costumes! Do not let the candidate look like the boy in the bubble! Do not allow voters to make a visual connection between the candidate and Woody Allen dressed as sperm!
Those are indeed big openings, especially here in FL where the Jewish vote is leaning toward GWB. They're expecting a much larger percentage to swing republican this election.
The new RNC video highlights one of Kerry's flipflops, on 12/11/01 he said, "We need to keep pressure on Iraq no matter what the evidence is on 9/11." In 1998 he was talking ground troops in response to the weak bombing response clinton gave to Saddam's removal of inspectors.
Has he ever said that Israel was in imminent threat of Saddam? The RNC should find that clip if there is one.
One more thing Kerry ignored: gay marriage.
The GOP should not let the media get away with rewriting this story. CONSTANTLY remind that this issue started in San Francisco, when the mayor threw state law out the window. AND in Massachussets with 4 judges.
Repeat, repeat, repeat this rhetorical question to Kerry until SOMEBODY in the press finally nails him:
"You say you oppose same-sex marriage, but you think the states should decide. You oppose a constitutional amendment. But, if a state or federal court tells Ohio that it must recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachussetts, what will you do to "let Ohio decide"?
(I also think GWB should clearly support "civil unions" as long as each state can decide...it covers the dispartity between him and Cheney on this issue.)
I think she looks remarkably like Tipper.
***
I thought she WAS Tipper...
Steve Bing's complete list of campaign contributions
Joe Trippi writes in his new book about the Dean campaign that Dean never expected to win the primary, he was in it to foster change in the dem party.
Susan and Howard get the news they're not as important as they thought? Nice friends you've got there!
Listening to Washington Journal on Cspan a few days ago Michael Wolff from Vanity Fair had an interesting opinion on republicans. Responding to a question about whether the MSM is liberal leaning Wolff explained that if they are (LOL) the dems take advantage of at least the assumption they are. When a reporter calls a dem it's almost impossible to get a return call, they never give reporters any help, unless it's to help themselves. However, if one calls a republican, they're always nice, always polite, they'll call you right back and give you more information than you asked for. Republicans will practically do your (the reporters) work for you.
Still that doesn't keep him from towing the dem party line. Go figure.
I didn't listen to everything Kerry said in his speech, did he say anything about abortion? The A word was noticeably sparse, at least in comparison to past conventions.
Mr. Kerry deserves credit for recognizing the demands of fighting a war and for promising to strengthen the military accordingly. He talked movingly of how his combat experience would temper his decision making: "I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe." The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy.
... what is "the job" in Iraq? He didn't say. Mr. Kerry could have spoken the difficult truth that U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for a long time. He could have reaffirmed his commitment to completing the task of helping build democracy. Instead, he chose words that seemed designed to give the impression that he could engineer a quick and painless exit.
Nor did Mr. Kerry's statements about future threats do justice to the complexity of today's challenge. "As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence," he said, a well-aimed shot at the Bush administration's failures to do the same. For many in the hall last night, the intelligence lapses in Iraq prove the wrongness of Mr. Bush's preemption strategy, and Mr. Kerry seemed to agree, saying that "the only justification for going to war" would be "a threat that was real and imminent." Yet a President Kerry, too, would face momentous decisions based on inevitably imperfect information, whether about Iran or North Korea or dangers yet to emerge. How would he respond? Will it always be safe to wait? [Take note Kerry, even the terrorists are now preempting, threatening to behead Pakistanis if Pakistan goes ahead with their troop deployment.] WP
July 30, 2004 -- Give John Forbes Kerry credit for being honest as he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for president last night. Because in his 55 minutes at the mike, he was truthful about how he'd fight the War on Terror. He won't.
"The United States never goes to war because we want to," Kerry said. "We only go to war because we have to." At worst, it is telling evidence of a profound misunderstanding of America's proper place in a fractious world.
It is a world in which new forces — hostile to America and its commitment to freedom and human dignity — were unleashed as the four-decade-long standoff between superpowers came to an end.
Those forces need to be confronted.
Let's be frank: John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam — and an entire career finding reasons not to employ reasonable force in pursuit of his country's legitimate security objectives.
Until, that is, the fall of 2002, when he decided to run for president.
Then, America had cause to topple Iraq — at least enough so for him to vote for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now, the winds — or so he seems to think — blow elsewhere. So he says he meant his vote only as a "threat."
Can he really be that naive?
Apparently.
Last night, the Massachusetts liberal who would be president wrapped himself in his Vietnam service — which by most accounts was honorable, and for which he has just cause to take pride. Of course not.
John Kerry, to borrow a phrase, just doesn't get it. He said it made an impression.
But, if so, why did he vote against providing the $87 billion needed to secure the freedom of 25 million Iraqis?
Ah, Iraq.
Kerry last night promised to "bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. . . . And bring our troops home."
That is not a plan. It is prelude to desertion under fire. (Last helicopter out of Baghdad, anyone?)
He said he wants "to get the terrorists before they get us." How? By rebuilding alliances. (Feel safer now?)
Kerry knew full well last night the importance of appearing tough on terror.
He thanked those of the "greatest generation for making America strong, for winning World War II, for winning the Cold War and for the great gift of service which brought America 50 years of peace and prosperity."
Hollow words, given that during Kerry's years in the Senate he voted against most of the weapons systems that kept the Soviet Union at bay — and ultimately made the Cold War victory possible.
"Peace and prosperity" prevail because America maintained sufficient strength to deter and defeat global communism — yes, the Vietnam War was part of that — and anyone who believes otherwise isn't fit to be president of the United States.
Not while America faces the grave threats inherent in global terrorism.
For the searing flames of 9/11 are but a taste of what radical Islam has planned for America, given the opportunity.
Again, the highlight of Kerry's life until now has been his opposition to the Vietnam War and his opposition to keeping the military strong.
Even now, when he says, as he did last night, that 9/11 "was the worst day we have ever seen," he betrays a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened that day.
A war that had been underway for a decade finally came to America's shores. And until the towers came down, Kerry hadn't a clue.
The attacks, frankly, were the logical result of the very quasi-pacifist philosophy that has long animated him and his party.
A war is not fought by voting to cut defense and intelligence budgets, as he did consistently.
Nor by pulling punches when "allies" object, as he promises now to do.
Nor even by focusing, as Kerry does, on "homeland security."
It is by going after and destroying the enemy. Period.
"Allies" be damned.
There is no greater concern that Americans have today than the War on Terror.
Kerry showed last night that he doesn't understand this.
In that limited respect, he stood tall in Boston and did the nation a real service. NewYorkPost
What we had hoped to hear Thursday, however, was how Kerry's admirable record of valor and public service would make a difference in leading this nation in the struggle against terrorists that target the United States and the regimes that aid them. Unfortunately, we came away still unsure of the answer.
Over and over, Kerry pledged to rebuild "our alliances." He said "we need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."
Which allies is he talking about? France? Germany? Canada? Does he seriously believe the reason they're not with us in Iraq is that they don't like George W. Bush? Surely he understands that they opposed the war that he supported in a Senate vote for a variety of other reasons, some of which they stated at the time.
For that matter, does he really believe those countries are likely to send any troops at this late date, let alone enough to hold out the prospect of bringing our own soldiers home early? [No but he believes that dems and swing voters are stupid or they hate GWB so much they'll tote that lie til they die in a terrorist attack.]
As he has before, Kerry gave the impression that his personal style will be the decisive difference - not only in cajoling our allies but also in directing our intelligence agencies. "I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence," he said, referring to the pre-war failure of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. But if Kerry believes Bush failed to hold out for the right "hard evidence," why didn't Kerry hold out when he had the chance instead of voting for the war?
Kerry did provide some specifics, such as a plan to double the size of our special forces and add 40,000 active duty troops. But for a man who clearly believes Bush's foreign policy has gone horribly wrong, it's surprising how mired in generalities he soon becomes - "I will fight a smarter, more effective war" - when he begins to state his critique. RockyMountainNews
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.