Kerry, who had an ethical bypass at birth, only tells the truth by accident.
Posted on 06/16/2004 5:23:06 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
For Kerry, the danger in playing this economic blame game is that voters will come to see him as no different than a president who has used exaggeration and selective use of facts to justify a war against Iraq. Rather than offering a contrast to the Republicans' highly partisan, attack-dog approach to political discourse, Kerry mimics it -- potentially turning off moderate, independent voters. And in terms of making a compelling economic case against Bush, it is wholly unnecessary.
hope you have your flame suit on
I told you folks months ago that John Kerry would implode. The real problem is that he is not nuts like Howard Dean, but will do or say anything he thinks that will get him elected. This guy is dangerous to the N'th degree! The Democrat Party should be ashamed of nominating such a lightweight and loser! That's what happens when you let hate rule your judgement!! This guy, Kerry, if elected will get a lot of innocent Americans killed! Better wake up America and destroy this fool and his party this November!
Well, apparently we only see this in the Post because they want to warn Kerry and give him advice. There's the part at the bottom that says that Bush's tax cuts are responsible for the evil "growing gap between the rich and the poor." ~barf~ And, of course, Bush has made no progress in protecting the solvency of Social Security and Medicare-- This article is to benefit Kerry, although it pretends to say something good about Bush. (I could've posted the Post's comments, but was concerned whether ti would be OK to do so.)
He needs to be asked the question, "President Bush is campaigning AND running the country at the same time....You are camapigning and doing nothing else.....Is it not true that the presidency requires the ability to multi-task and this being so... how would you function in office?
Kerry: Uh, no problem, I would have my secretary work in my presidential work schedule around my cosmetic appointments, my photo ops and my meetings with Jane on how to run this country right.
Endless tax cuts are needed because they follow endless tax increases pushed through by the left.
No flame suit is needed. The first two lines are quotes from the full text of the article, not his opinion. The last line was a criticism of the WP, which is almost always allowed here.
"...the Bush economic program is based on the big lie that endless tax cuts are necessary to sustain economic growth."
So it turns out this Pearlstine character is no different; only his LIES are different.
Kerry was in Vietnam? Are you sure? I have never heard that. I wonder why he never mentions it in his campaign?
Thanks for explaining my post to HMB.
The article was clearly written by a democRAT who wants Bush to lose and is frustrated that Kerry isn't doing the job. The thrust of the entire article can be summarized as follows: "Kerry you fool, your lies aren't working. Use these lies instead!"
last week the GAO said the SS system was in better shape and ahd money until 2053, ten years later than their previous forecast. This writer says President Bush has done nothing to help, but the GAO says that improved economic models show the benefit to the long term health of the system. Who is right? not the post writer.
The only one who I wish had misfired was Kerry's dad.
Your post "Lets Do Kerry" gave me a good chuckle and took me way back to my college days!
The president inherited an economy that was already in a recession that, in the experience of most households, businesses and governments, lasted until the early months of 2003. This recession came after an unusually long expansion characterized, at its end, by a giant investment bubble that burst. It was only natural that such a downturn would require a longer-than-usual period of painful adjustment... In this country, presidents don't "preside over" economies, and they certainly don't control them. They can implement a limited range of economic policies that affect the economic cycle at the margin. And on that score, Bush deserves high marks.The partisan shills who run the media like to toss out the occasional op-ed like this one to make it look as if they aren't what they are. Despite the constant not too subtle slams against GWB found throughout, which work as qualifiers and disclaimers to feed the biases of their usual readers (akin to the disclaimer PBS' "Frontline" used years ago when it covered the Sandinista atrocities in Nicaragua), it's a pretty fair piece -- directed though toward John Kerry's campaign, not toward general readers and voters. "Beat Bush, just don't do it this way," is the theme.
A couple of election prediction pages, which are kept updated, are Federal Review and Dales' Electoral College Breakdown 2004Environmental Fast-fact SourceMatt Richardson draws attention to Ten Second Response, a reference site maintained by the National Center for Public Policy Research, providing concise answers and facts to the most commonly encountered questions and misconceptions regarding environmental issues...
Posted on August 28, 2002Ten Second ResponseIssue: George W. Bush killed the Kyoto Protocol.
National Center for Public Policy Research
Response 1: President Bush did not kill the Kyoto Protocol. It was dead when he took office. Senate Res. 98, approved 95-0 on July 25, 1997, states that the Senate will not ratify any climate treaty that would harm the U.S. economy or fails to require developing nations to reduce emissions. Kyoto fails both tests. The President simply recognized these facts.
Response 2: President Clinton signed appropriations bills in 1999, 2000 and 2001 prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds to "issue rules, regulations, decrees of orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol" until the Protocol is ratified by the Senate.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
What is funny is that the Wash Post is right. Kerry doesn't need to make an economic case. Most people are far to uneducated or don't really care enough to know who's fault the economy is. All they know is that 3 million jobs are lost or more importantly.. they are out of work.
The fact remains that the economy goes through cycles.. no matter how many people attack policies the real reason the economy failed was the internet stock boom.. too much capital going out to too many companies with no return in which investors got caught up in the action of making millions and found out all they were really doing was buying stock at 55 bucks that was really only worth a penny.
Millions lost money trying to have a low odds lottery and got pounded... which is kinda of funny because the stock boom was a real life taking of money from the masses to give to the rich.. Exec's cashed out huge sums while investors continued to convicence themselves that the internet boom would never end.
Now couple that with 9/11 and you got yourself a massive well resilent economy that two blows within 2 years time frame and of course it's going to get a little indigestion.
Now that the economy(and it's people) are a little wiser things will hop right back on track. Of course the only way to conveince people to put money back into an econcomy that kicked their collective butts 3-4 years ago was to put money into their pockets.. write some deficits and let people regain confidence.
Ahh yes.. it's not rocket science.. it's just common sense.
Kerry, who had an ethical bypass at birth, only tells the truth by accident.
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.