Posted on 08/05/2004 10:25:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
"There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better. We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people... I am proud that at my side will be a running mate whose life is the story of the American dream and who's worked every day to make that dream real for all Americans... And what can I say about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know. She's down to earth, nurturing, courageous, wise and smart. She speaks her mind and she speaks the truth, and I love her for that, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at postgazette.com ...
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care, or if you tell middle class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more.""Nope -- what you do is vote against body armor so more working families lose a parent in a war I voted for, oops, I mean..."
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
"And what can I say about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know. "
Didn't Clinton say exactly the same thing about Hillary? In both cases, it was a complete crock.
If that's true, I really do feel sorry for the guy.
Kerry reminds me of the outdoor harangue scene in the book "1984"...The Battle of the BiographiesKerry's MO is to support something (or at least not attack it) and then attack people who act on his words. He attacks Bush for trashing the Kyoto Treaty, but did not support it when it came up in the Senate; voted for Bush's education program, and then savaged it; supported the Patriot Act, and savaged John Ashcroft when he carried it out. He was for a unilateral American foreign policy when proposed by Bill Clinton, against it when suggested by either George Bush... "He was for affirmative action, just not this affirmative action. He was for a drug war, just not this drug war. He was for an Iraq war, just not this Iraq war." ...for weapons systems, but not those actually proposed; for the use of force, but under no conditions that anybody can imagine or foresee. He voted against the first Gulf War in 1991, but said he was not against using force then, and he voted for the second Gulf War in 2002, but said he never imagined that force would be used. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, he attacked George Bush the younger for not having taken the route followed by George Bush the elder, which he hadn't supported at the time. In 1991, he accused the elder George Bush of a "rush into war" (does this sound familiar?) and derided his coalition as "bizarre new bedfellows" and "shadowy battlefield allies."
11 posted on 03/05/2004 11:36:49 PM PST by SunkenCiv
If the first thing a Democrat mentions is his/her integrity, they're a crook. If they harp on their experience, they're unqualified; if they talk about their vision, they have none. The tactic is to tell the biggest lies about their real problem areas. When Bill Clinton took the effort to declare that his would be the 'most ethical administration in history', I knew it was because he aniticpated trouble with his ethics, or lack thereof.
Yep. The speech was littered with contradictions like this. I hope the American people catch on. I don't know about the 10% thing. There are a lot of people who are unfamiliar with the nature of war. All you have to do is show them a clip of a mother who lost a child in war and they'll be pacifists for the rest of their lives.
Still...There's a long way to go in this campaign. Maybe the people will have a sudden fit of common sense.
Nineteen Eighty-FourOn a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage ! The agents of Goldstein had been at work ! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.
by George Orwell
(from chapter 17)
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax... Oceania was at war with Eastasia : Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete.
Two issues:
1. The military was ALREADY IN THE PROCESS of buying the new variety of body armor when the war broke out. Everyone DID have body armor...just not the new variety. As soon as the overwhelming superiority of the new was recognized, a crash program to buy the new was implemented....but...it was dependent on the speed with which the company that made it could respond. New equipment is fielded according to a fielding schedule. It is also true that it took time to field the M1 Abrahms to every armor unit when it first came out. It was a vastly superior weapons system. Many had the M60 for many years while the Abrahms was being fielded. Did that mean that the military valued them any less? No. It meant that there was a fielding schedule and budget established by Congress.
2. Kerry voted AGAINST the money to buy the new body armor.
I heard sKerry's delivery of this little speech. His blowhard pomposity is laughable. How can people not see it?
I agree. America could do a lot better than electing John Kerry.
France 'forming ethnic ghettoes'
57 posted on 07/31/2004 1:31:28 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
His blowhard pomposity is laughable. How can people not see it?I think they already do. After George W gives another acceptance speech, as powerful as the one he gave in 2004, and Dick Cheney has had another couple of months giving wingman campaign speeches around the country, even the really superficial voter will be swayed. And that's *without* the capture of bin Laden.
America could do a lot better than electing John Kerry.Definitely.
I'm not really much concerned any more about sKerry.
There have been so many faulty steps made by that "campaign" during the past two weeks that the remainder appears to be pretty well choreographed for the President. I have been saying I believe that the voting will be 52%-42%-6% , but if I'm wrong, the margin of victory for President Bush will be even greater.
.
I think it's safe to say that Kerry isn't running a reasonably competent campaign...'Scientific' view forecasts a big Bush winPolls may show the presidential race in a dead heat, but for a small band of academics who use scientific formulas to predict elections, President Bush is on his way to a sizable win... Most of these academics are predicting Bush, bolstered by robust economic growth, will win between 53 and 58 percent of the votes cast for him and his Democratic opponent John Kerry... But one glaring error is what the forecasters are perhaps best remembered for: They predicted in 2000 that Democrat Al Gore would win easily, pegging his total at between 53 and 60 percent of the two-party vote... The forecasters chalk up the 2000 error to Gore's campaign, which distanced itself from the Clinton record. All the models assume the candidates will run reasonably competent campaigns, said Thomas Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee... Holbrook uses an economic indicator from the University of Michigan's survey of consumers. One question asks whether respondents are better or worse off financially than they were a year before. In May, 45 percent said they were better off. That is lower than the all-time election year high of 54 percent in 2000, Holbrook said, but higher than the 39 percent in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.
Reuters
July 01, 2004
To top it off, "La Raza" is a racist hate group.Richardson to Kerry: Don't pick meNew Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of the country's top Hispanic Democrats, on Thursday told John Kerry he no longer wants to be considered as a possible running mate. Richardson said he wants to keep a promise to the people of New Mexico to serve a full, four-year term... Other politicians who have been talked about are North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, Florida Sen. Bob Graham and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, among others... Kerry was in Arizona to address a meeting of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group.
The Associated Press
July 01, 2004
Nader supporters give up Arizona ballotIndependent candidate Ralph Nader, denied a spot on the Arizona ballot, on Friday accused the Democrats and presidential candidate John Kerry of engaging in political "dirty tricks." ...Nader complained that the Democratic Party has "stepped up its obstruction tendencies" in challenging his ballot access... The Kerry campaign dismissed Nader’s complaints, arguing that Democrats were following the rules when they legally challenged Nader’s signatures to get on the ballot... Nader’s campaign had submitted more than 22,000 signatures to Arizona election officials June 9 -- far more than the 14,694 valid signatures required by state law to compete against President Bush and Kerry... Two Democratic voters had filed a lawsuit last week, backed by the Arizona Democratic Party, questioning the validity of Nader’s nominating petitions and other documents. The Democrats argued that more than 70 percent of the signatures were invalid... Nader campaign attorney Richard Mahrle conceded there were "technical errors" in the ballot petition and said Nader would not contest the lawsuit... Nader and Kerry met in May, with the two offering compliments following the session. Whatever truce existed was clearly gone on Friday as Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese warned Democrats about future ballot challenges... Nader has been endorsed by the Reform Party, which has ballot lines in at least seven states.
The Associated Press
July 02, 2004
To quote Sen. D'Amato: "That would seem to be the problem."
Lurch, you need to get out more and meet people with moral compasses not calibrated by gold-digging. Seems her moral compass pointed Republican thirty years ago said you Dims were a bunch of lying crooks. Maybe flip-floppers are attracted to each other(and then of course repelled).
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.