Bush vs. Kerry: It will be more interesting than you think

The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/09/04 | Jeffrey Bell & Frank Cannon

[WOSG]

Kerrymandering

Kerry Misleads On Intelligence Cuts (from http://www.gopteamleader.com/blog/story.asp?id=1440)

SEN. JOHN KERRY ON HIS VARIOUS PROPOSALS TO CUT INTELLIGENCE FUNDING: "I was on the Intelligence Committee. What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means. There was a fascination always with satellites, listening devices, not with human intelligence. I've always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence, that's our failure. ... I wanted to reduce spending from The National Technical Means and change the culture of our intelligence gathering." (Fox News "Sunday," 1/25/04)

THE FACTS ON KERRY'S EFFORTS TO CUT INTELLIGENCE FUNDING

• In 1997, Kerry Questioned Size Of Intelligence Community. "Now that [the Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)
• In 1995, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1.5 Billion From Overall Intelligence Budget, Not Specific Programs. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerry's 1995 bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
• In 1994, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Intelligence Spending. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994)
• In 1994, Kerry Proposed And Voted To Cut $1 Billion From Intelligence. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was soundly defeated. (S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea)

Proposed Cuts Would Have Hurt All Intelligence Programs And Military Readiness:

• U.S. Code: National Foreign Intelligence Program Encompasses All Aspects Of Intelligence Community Programs And Efforts. "The term 'National Foreign Intelligence Program' refers to all programs, projects, and activities of the intelligence community, as well as any other programs of the intelligence community designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of a United States department or agency or by the President." (50 U.S.C. § 401a-6)
• Major Component Of National Foreign Intelligence Program Is FBI's Nationwide Counter Terrorism Programs. "Important responsibilities of the FBI's [Field Offices] are foreign counterintelligence and counter terrorism within the United States, economic espionage, and the ANSIR (Awareness of National Security Issues and Response) Program. Special Agents working these programs strive to detect and thwart the intelligence collection activities of foreign powers and their agents, and take aggressive measures to reduce the vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism." ("The National Foreign Intelligence Program," FBI Baltimore Division Website, http://baltimore.fbi.gov/nfip.htm, Accessed 1/25/04)
• Tactical Intelligence Provides Vital, Time-Sensitive Support For Commanders And Soldiers On Ground. Tactical Intelligence includes "[t]hose activities outside the National Foreign Intelligence Program that accomplish the following: a. respond to operational commanders' tasking for time-sensitive information on foreign entities; b. respond to national intelligence community tasking of systems whose primary mission is support to operating forces; c. train personnel for intelligence duties; d. provide an intelligence reserve; or e. are devoted to research and development of intelligence or related capabilities. Specifically excluded are programs that are so closely integrated with a weapon system that their primary function is to provide immediate-use targeting data." ("Tactical Intelligence And Related Activities," Department Of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/, 6/5/03)
• In 1993, Kerry Proposed $45 Billion In Science, Intelligence And Defense Spending Cuts. (John Aloysius Farrell, "Buchanan Vindicated, But Pulitzer Unlikely," The Boston Globe, 11/20/93

  http://www.gopteamleader.com/blog/story.asp?id=1440

[WOSG]

posted previous as juston example of how GOP will show Kerry's extreme views on national security.

[WOSG]

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=548&org_name=NTUF


Campaign pundits continue to wonder whether Howard Dean's candidacy for President will get the final boost it needs to prevail in this month's key Democratic primaries with former officeseeker Al Gore's recent endorsement.

Yet, Gore's indirect presence in the race also reminds taxpayers of his duels with George W. Bush over fiscal policy in the 2000 Presidential contest. While Gore labeled Bush's tax reduction and Social Security reform plans as "risky schemes," Bush accused his opponent's budget platform of suffering from "fuzzy math." Today, as eight Democrats vie for their party's top nomination, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race.

Each of the Democrat contenders for the White House disparaged recent projections of huge budget shortfalls (nearing $500 billion for Fiscal Year 2004) for their own rhetorical purposes. For example, front-runner Howard Dean states he will commit to "set the nation on the path to a balanced budget."[1] For his part, Dick Gephardt recalled that "two short years ago, we were having arguments about what to do with the surplus" and announced that "the President's economic policy has failed."[2]

Joseph Lieberman has accused White House officials of "hiding behind the war and homeland security to excuse their own fiscal irresponsibility,"[3] while John Kerry claims "this Administration has turned fiscal responsibility on its ear."[4] Wesley Clark has declared he "would restore the basic principle of responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals must be paid for without increasing the deficit."[5]

Despite their different approaches, to a person, the eight Democrat Presidential candidates call for spending increases that would substantially swell the deficit. On average, the candidates' proposals would pile an additional $479 billion onto the federal deficit beyond planned spending (a 21.5 percent increase in the budget).[6]

This Policy Paper systematically examines the fiscal implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using neutral techniques to assign a running cost tally to each budget proposal publicly offered by the candidates.

Highlights include:
* Out of over 200 cost-associated proposals offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending.
* All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cut.[7]
* Five of the eight candidates' health care spending proposals would cost over $100 billion in the first year alone.


John Kerry leads the pack of Democratic Presidential candidates in the military/veterans policy category. The Senator's pledge to support veterans' health programs carries a cost of over $41 billion. The bulk of Kerry's spending, however, comes in the form of a $55.9 billion education agenda, an $89.88 billion health care platform, and $31.04 billion in infrastructure improvements.

Included in Kerry's education plan -- the second priciest of the Democratic proposals -- is a $2.25 billion offer of more affordable child care, an expanded Head Start program, and $25 billion in school renovations. The Kerry health care plan allows Americans to buy into the same arrangement offered to Members of Congress -- at a taxpayer cost of $89.5 billion per year. Senator Kerry's infrastructure program entails $31 billion in restored highway funding and $35 million in funding for a high-speed rail programs.

[WOSG]

You do know the Concord Coalition is a 'stalking horse' for liberals against tax cuts - they are for higher taxes. So why would they criticize Bush in this setup piece that tries to divide conservatives? So he will get defeated by somone who will increase taxes? (and also spend more, but the CC only cares about deficits, not about whether the country becomes socialistic).

TRUST THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION INSTEAD:

State of Union Speech's Price Tag Lowest in Five Years, Line-by-Line Analysis Finds
"n Tuesday's speech to Congress George W. Bush proposed $13.6 billion in annual spending increases, the lowest rise among the last five Presidential State of the Union addresses, according to a detailed analysis by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF)."
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=551&org_name=NTUF


Kerry's rating .... F in almost every year he's been in the Senate.

http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?senate_id=54

[finnman69]

like I said..spending or not

Bush is not a socialist.....

'conservatives' who call Bush a socilist are as retarded and simple minded as the socialists who call Bush a Nazi.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

A casual review of the public record will reveal that GW has supported every socialist spending measure that has ever crossed his desk.

BTW, Calling someone who disagrees with you "retarded leaves one to suspect your personal intellectual "horsepower".

[finnman69]

I didn't call you retarded because I disagree with you. I called you retarded because you kind the asinine assertion that LW fruitloops like Michael Moore make.


Fine, call Bush a socialist, but it places you in the same mental lightweight categories as the Moveon.com jerkoffs who call Bush a nazi. I can't help it if you make a stupid assertion.

[NYTexan]

Nice Ammo!

Expect to hear it again in Oct-Nov.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

BTW, I am a libertarian constitutional conservative. I have supported GW because he is by far the least damaging (to the Republic) of the alternatives.

I am an operations manager for a California-based high-tech equipment manufacturer. I have earned degrees in engineering, business, and economics. I have earned an MBA and I have taught business, economics, and communications courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. I will leave it to your as-yet unsubstantiated intellect to discern whether or not I am "retarded". LOL!

[finnman69]

, I am a libertarian constitutional conservative.

LOL, figures....here is a typical Libertarian.

[Cagey]

I am an operations manager for a California-based high-tech equipment manufacturer. I have earned degrees in engineering, business, and economics. I have earned an MBA and I have taught business, economics, and communications courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. I will leave it to your as-yet unsubstantiated intellect to discern whether or not I am "retarded". LOL!

With the credentials you list, you are certainly not retarded but you could easily be insane.

I'll go further than finnman and say that your calling Kerry a Communist is crazy. Kerry is a far left whacked out Democrat, but for God's sake stop tossing the "C" word around. It makes you look like a wing-nut or something similar.

[SunkenCiv]

"I'm a doctor, dammit, not a president." -- Howard Dean

[SunkenCiv]

Clinton and Clinton:
To maintain their hold on the party,
Howard Dean had to be destroyed
by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Sunday, February 1, 2004
posted on Free Republic

Today the party of Roosevelt and Truman is the party of Clinton & Clinton. Bill Clinton remains a mesmerizing figure to those he does not repel. Hillary's appeal is in some ways broader than his. As a U.S. senator she has gained stature and positioned herself as a "Scoopette" Jackson, but one for the progressive bien-pensants. She can represent the transcendent dreams of the feminists, the gay-rights activists, the environmental rigorists. Behind the scenes, Clinton servitors run the Democratic Party, beginning at the Democratic National Committee with Chairman Terrence McAuliffe. Though the McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" law has left Democratic campaign committees with depleted coffers, the Clintons' neo-Georgian mansion in Northwest Washington has become a money magnet, with generous lobbyists rolling up in their black Lincolns nightly to make New York's junior senator a richly endowed political donor. Hillary also presides over a New Age political machine, starting with a host of fundraising honeypots with cute names such as HILLPAC and Hill's Angels. Longtime Clinton loyalists are directing tens of millions of dollars to organizations under their control, including a liberal radio talk-show network and a moneyed think tank just off K Street, the Center for American Progress. Clinton lieutenant Harold Ickes is directing funds to what is expected to become a $250 million behemoth political organization called America Votes, which will rely on shared polling data, research and mailing lists, including "Demzilla"--the data bank on voters maintained by the DNC. "It doesn't take much to figure out what the issues are and the messages you need to be helpful," the clever Mr. Ickes told one reporter.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I was engaging in hyperbole. Having a little fun. OK? Lighten up already. Jeeez.

BTW, since at least the 1960's BOTH parties have been drifiting steadily and inexorably TO THE LEFT, wouldn't you agree?

If JFK were campaigning for the 2004 Democrat Party nomination on the basis of his 1960 platform (lower taxes to stimulate the economy, etc.) he would probably not be nominated over today's (tax and spend) JFK. And what 1960's era democrat would not have salivated over the laundry list of big-governbment social spending that the Republican Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have given us. My comment regarding GW and JFK was with regard to THIS issue, folks.

FYI: Actually, it should be libertarian with a small "L". Hopefully you understand the difference. See Ya around.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

BTW, stopming up and down and calling somebody "retarded" makes you come off like a fifth-grade school girl.

[Cagey]

....BOTH parties have been drifiting steadily and inexorably TO THE LEFT, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I sure would.

[finnman69]

BTW, stopming up and down and calling somebody "retarded" makes you come off like a fifth-grade school girl.

I'm not the one who made the wild exaggerated comment about Bush. And yes I know fifth graders who know what a socialist is, maybe I can put you in touch with them.

[finnman69]

Kerry is a far left whacked out Democrat, but for God's sake stop tossing the "C" word around. It makes you look like a wing-nut or something similar.

Communist, socialist, nazi......all terms used frequently inappropriately by wing nuts.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I was using hyperbole to make a point. Do I have to check with you in the future to make sure I have your permission?

BTW, I supported GW and the GOP in 2000 financially and with GOTV work. I donate thousands to the Federal and State Republican parties as well as individual candidates in my home district and across the country. I will do so again this next election cycle and for as long as I am able to support conservatism in this country.

I like GW and believe we were extremely fortunate that Gore and the Clinton Democrat machine were unable to steal the election in 2000. As much as I like GW he has been a tough pill to swallow with his practically insatiable spending binge, with his refusal to secure our borders and arm our pilots, etc. I could post a lot of source material but I will not do so.

Nonetheless, GW has done a magnificent job in facing our enemies abroad and on foriegn policy in general. His instincts, and his command of our military and national security apparatus in rolling up al-Queda, defeating the Taliban and Saddam -- leading to Libya's recent conversion and who knows what other near term benefits has been remarkable and will lead to a safer world.

I'm going to stand down now. See you around.

[lasereye]

I think this article hit the bullseye. Bush can't keep trying to orient his campaign around appealing to moderates, which seems to be Rove's strategy. He has to clarify differences between himself and Kerry on the social issues, especially abortion, and not back down. If he doesn't have the guts to do that, he deserves to lose. And if Rove doesn't like it, can him.