The Case Against George W. Bush



By Ron Reagan

It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people's eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.


THE MOST EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF distortion and misdirection—which the administration even now cannot bring itself to repudiate—involve our putative "War on Terror" and our subsequent foray into Iraq.

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more "humble" foreign policy. "I would take the use of force very seriously," he said. "I would be guarded in my approach." Other countries would resent us "if we're an arrogant nation." He sniffed at the notion of "nation building." "Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops." International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration's approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.

But didn't 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn't Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn't Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?

Well, no.

As Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and his onetime "terror czar," Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out," O'Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. Clarke got the same impression from within the White House. Afghanistan had to be dealt with first; that's where the actual perpetrators were, after all. But the Taliban was a mere appetizer; Saddam was the entrée. (Or who knows? The soup course?) It was simply a matter of convincing the American public (and our representatives) that war was justified.

The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner (a staff member at Fox News—the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House—told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden's name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large) while Saddam's Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush's words, "a threat of unique urgency" to the most powerful nation on earth.

Fanciful but terrifying scenarios were introduced: Unmanned aircraft, drones, had been built for missions targeting the U. S., Bush told the nation. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice deadpanned to CNN. And, Bush maintained, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." We "know" Iraq possesses such weapons, Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney assured us. We even "know" where they are hidden. After several months of this mumbo jumbo, 70 percent of Americans had embraced the fantasy that Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center.


ALL THESE ASSERTIONS have proved to be baseless and, we've since discovered, were regarded with skepticism by experts at the time they were made. But contrary opinions were derided, ignored, or covered up in the rush to war. Even as of this writing, Dick Cheney clings to his mad assertion that Saddam was somehow at the nexus of a worldwide terror network.

And then there was Abu Ghraib. Our "war president" may have been justified in his assumption that Americans are a warrior people. He pushed the envelope in thinking we'd be content as an occupying power, but he was sadly mistaken if he thought that ordinary Americans would tolerate an image of themselves as torturers. To be fair, the torture was meant to be secret. So were the memos justifying such treatment that had floated around the White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department for more than a year before the first photos came to light. The neocons no doubt appreciate that few of us have the stones to practice the New Warfare. Could you slip a pair of women's panties over the head of a naked, cowering stranger while forcing him to masturbate? What would you say while sodomizing him with a toilet plunger? Is keeping someone awake till he hallucinates inhumane treatment or merely "sleep management"?

Most of us know the answers to these questions, so it was incumbent upon the administration to pretend that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, not policy. Investigations, we were assured, were already under way; relevant bureaucracies would offer unstinting cooperation; the handful of miscreants would be sternly disciplined. After all, they didn't "represent the best of what America's all about." As anyone who'd watched the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission could have predicted, what followed was the usual administration strategy of stonewalling, obstruction, and obfuscation. The appointment of investigators was stalled; documents were withheld, including the full report by Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed the Army's primary investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. A favorite moment for many featured John McCain growing apoplectic as Donald Rumsfeld and an entire tableful of army brass proved unable to answer the simple question Who was in charge at Abu Ghraib?

The Bush administration no doubt had its real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. They've simply chosen not to share them with the American public. They sought justification for ignoring the Geneva Convention and other statutes prohibiting torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners but were loath to acknowledge as much. They may have ideas worth discussing, but they don't welcome the rest of us in the conversation. They don't trust us because they don't dare expose their true agendas to the light of day. There is a surreal quality to all this: Occupation is liberation; Iraq is sovereign, but we're in control; Saddam is in Iraqi custody, but we've got him; we'll get out as soon as an elected Iraqi government asks us, but we'll be there for years to come. Which is what we counted on in the first place, only with rose petals and easy coochie.

This Möbius reality finds its domestic analogue in the perversely cynical "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" sloganeering at Bush's EPA and in the administration's irresponsible tax cutting and other fiscal shenanigans. But the Bush administration has always worn strangely tinted shades, and you wonder to what extent Mr. Bush himself lives in a world of his own imagining.

And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits. He may find it difficult to relate personally to any of the nearly two million citizens who've lost their jobs under his administration, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to post a net loss of jobs. Mr. Bush has never had to worry that he couldn't afford the best available health care for his children. For him, forty-three million people without health insurance may be no more than a politically inconvenient abstraction. When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush's economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You're the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you'll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet.


ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.

Mr. Bush's tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream media. His untruths simply didn't fit the agreed-upon narrative. While generally acknowledged to be lacking in experience, depth, and other qualifications typically considered useful in a leader of the free world, Bush was portrayed as a decent fellow nonetheless, one whose straightforwardness was a given. None of that "what the meaning of is is" business for him. And, God knows, no furtive, taxpayer-funded fellatio sessions with the interns. Al Gore, on the other hand, was depicted as a dubious self-reinventor, stained like a certain blue dress by Bill Clinton's prurient transgressions. He would spend valuable weeks explaining away statements—"I invented the Internet"—that he never made in the first place. All this left the coast pretty clear for Bush.

Scenario typical of the 2000 campaign: While debating Al Gore, Bush tells two obvious—if not exactly earth-shattering—lies and is not challenged. First, he claims to have supported a patient's bill of rights while governor of Texas. This is untrue. He, in fact, vigorously resisted such a measure, only reluctantly bowing to political reality and allowing it to become law without his signature. Second, he announces that Gore has outspent him during the campaign. The opposite is true: Bush has outspent Gore. These misstatements are briefly acknowledged in major press outlets, which then quickly return to the more germane issues of Gore's pancake makeup and whether a certain feminist author has counseled him to be more of an "alpha male."

Having gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the White House, they picked up where they left off.


IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH and confusion of 9/11, Bush, who on that day was in Sarasota, Florida, conducting an emergency reading of "The Pet Goat," was whisked off to Nebraska aboard Air Force One. While this may have been entirely sensible under the chaotic circumstances—for all anyone knew at the time, Washington might still have been under attack—the appearance was, shall we say, less than gallant. So a story was concocted: There had been a threat to Air Force One that necessitated the evasive maneuver. Bush's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, cited "specific" and "credible" evidence to that effect. The story quickly unraveled. In truth, there was no such threat.

Then there was Bush's now infamous photo-op landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and his subsequent speech in front of a large banner emblazoned MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The banner, which loomed in the background as Bush addressed the crew, became problematic as it grew clear that the mission in Iraq—whatever that may have been—was far from accomplished. "Major combat operations," as Bush put it, may have technically ended, but young Americans were still dying almost daily. So the White House dealt with the questionable banner in a manner befitting a president pledged to "responsibility and accountability": It blamed the sailors. No surprise, a bit of digging by journalists revealed the banner and its premature triumphalism to be the work of the White House communications office.

More serious by an order of magnitude was the administration's dishonesty concerning pre-9/11 terror warnings. As questions first arose about the country's lack of preparedness in the face of terrorist assault, Condoleezza Rice was dispatched to the pundit arenas to assure the nation that "no one could have imagined terrorists using aircraft as weapons." In fact, terrorism experts had warned repeatedly of just such a calamity. In June 2001, CIA director George Tenet sent Rice an intelligence report warning that "it is highly likely that a significant Al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Two intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 specifically connected Al Qaeda to the imminent danger of hijacked planes being used as weapons. According to The New York Times, after the second of these briefings, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States," was delivered to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." This was the briefing Dr. Rice dismissed as "historical" in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

What's odd is that none of these lies were worth the breath expended in the telling. If only for self-serving political reasons, honesty was the way to go. The flight of Air Force One could easily have been explained in terms of security precautions taken in the confusion of momentous events. As for the carrier landing, someone should have fallen on his or her sword at the first hint of trouble: We told the president he needed to do it; he likes that stuff and was gung-ho; we figured, What the hell?; it was a mistake. The banner? We thought the sailors would appreciate it. In retrospect, also a mistake. Yup, we sure feel dumb now. Owning up to the 9/11 warnings would have entailed more than simple embarrassment. But done forthrightly and immediately, an honest reckoning would have earned the Bush team some respect once the dust settled. Instead, by needlessly tap-dancing, Bush's White House squandered vital credibility, turning even relatively minor gaffes into telling examples of its tendency to distort and evade the truth.

But image is everything in this White House, and the image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies . . . nothing? As Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has pointed out, Bush has "never fully inhabited" the presidency. Bush apologists can smilingly excuse his malopropisms and vagueness as the plainspokenness of a man of action, but watching Bush flounder when attempting to communicate extemporaneously, one is left with the impression that he is ineloquent not because he can't speak but because he doesn't bother to think.


GEORGE W. BUSH PROMISED to "change the tone in Washington" and ran for office as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative," in the focus-group-tested sloganeering of his campaign. Yet he has governed from the right wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base" that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and Medicare, of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical Grover Norquist's phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them—"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It's not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it's unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush's former head of the Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once told this magazine, "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm."

This was not what the American electorate opted for when, in 2000, by a slim but decisive margin of more than half a million votes, they chose . . . the other guy. Bush has never had a mandate. Surveys indicate broad public dissatisfaction with his domestic priorities. How many people would have voted for Mr. Bush in the first place had they understood his eagerness to pass on crushing debt to our children or seen his true colors regarding global warming and the environment? Even after 9/11, were people really looking to be dragged into an optional war under false pretenses?

If ever there was a time for uniting and not dividing, this is it. Instead, Mr. Bush governs as if by divine right, seeming to actually believe that a wise God wants him in the White House and that by constantly evoking the horrible memory of September 11, 2001, he can keep public anxiety stirred up enough to carry him to another term.


UNDERSTANDABLY, SOME SUPPORTERS of Mr. Bush's will believe I harbor a personal vendetta against the man, some seething resentment. One conservative commentator, based on earlier remarks I've made, has already discerned "jealousy" on my part; after all, Bush, the son of a former president, now occupies that office himself, while I, most assuredly, will not. Truth be told, I have no personal feelings for Bush at all. I hardly know him, having met him only twice, briefly and uneventfully—once during my father's presidency and once during my father's funeral. I'll acknowledge occasional annoyance at the pretense that he's somehow a clone of my father, but far from threatening, I see this more as silly and pathetic. My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself. His Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right and its kill-anything-that-moves attack instincts. Believe it or not, I don't look in the mirror every morning and see my father looming over my shoulder. I write and speak as nothing more or less than an American citizen, one who is plenty angry about the direction our country is being dragged by the current administration. We have reached a critical juncture in our nation's history, one ripe with both danger and possibility. We need leadership with the wisdom to prudently confront those dangers and the imagination to boldly grasp the possibilities. Beyond issues of fiscal irresponsibility and ill-advised militarism, there is a question of trust. George W. Bush and his allies don't trust you and me. Why on earth, then, should we trust them? Fortunately, we still live in a democratic republic. The Bush team cannot expect a cabal of right-wing justices to once again deliver the White House. Come November 2, we will have a choice: We can embrace a lie, or we can restore a measure of integrity to our government. We can choose, as a bumper sticker I spotted in Seattle put it, SOMEONE ELSE FOR PRESIDENT.





See the article here: http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2004%2F040729_mf e_reagan.html&x=55&y=7

http://www.ajax.org/images/people/bush-george-w-2.jpg

Blah, blah, blah, blah,.... blah!

I don't take anything Ron Jr. says seriously. That whole diatribe shows that sometimes the acorn DOES fall far from the tree. Simply regurgitated liberal blathering.

Shall be fun when he gets relected in 04, and all those Libs cry and whine just like good old Al gore remember when he lost, vanished for a while then gave some kind of speech and looks like he is a depressed castaway

Ya, did you see Gore speech. What an angry guy he still is. Even after every liberal paper in the country went down there and did a recount (still couldn't come up with the numbers), they still cry about it. Looks like Bush might win by 4 points now. I like the avatar Brad.

Gotta represent

Will do. Taking off right now to go to the Anti-Kerry rally in Milwaukee. Then tonight off to see the ketchup-king do some more bs'ing.

Well, we all have our 2¢. He certainly milked his for all it's worth. He's in debt now.

Well, it was pretty entertaining seeing all the Kerry people in line for the "speech" tonight. A whole bunch of Bush supporters were there with megaphones to keep things interesting. Nothing like good ol political (peaceful) bashing from both sides. I couldn't help but notice that the Kerry supporters have a tendency to be quite rude. I didn't have a pin on or anything like that. I hung out in both crowds, milled around and came away with the feeling that the people that support Kerry are far less tolerant to other ideas and seem to lack a sense of humor. The Bush people were laughing, telling jokes, having a good time, the way it should be. The Kerry camp just seemed angry. I have to go back tonight to hear the speech. I think I am going to carry a sign with Bush on one side and Kerry on the other and get some video of the reactions. Should be fun to see how each side reacts to a sign that supports both candidates. I already know which group I will probably get the nastier comments from but we'll see.

I have to go back tonight to hear the speech. I think I am going to carry a sign with Bush on one side and Kerry on the other and get some video of the reactions. Should be fun to see how each side reacts to a sign that supports both candidates. I already know which group I will probably get the nastier comments from but we'll see.
LOL. Definately get some footage and share!

I cant wait til elections, I know im not voting for Bush...

No video. On/off switch is broken. Bummer.

Talk about intolerance. I put on a GW pin and tried to enter the grounds and was turned back. I was told all Bush people had to be over across the street. So I go back and put on a Kerry pin and they let me in. Same 2 people at the gate even. I try to tell a TV crew what happened but they weren't interested. I went over to where the Bush supporters where. I would say about a 1000 people. They tried to drown out Teresa when she was speaking with "4 more years". Her response was pretty funny with "of hell". I didn't know I was living in hell? If this is hell, Heaven must be a 10 star hotel. LOL. So the nightly news comes on all gushing for 15 minutes about Kerry. They literally gave the Bush supporters 5 seconds and a far away shot from a block away. Once again the liberal media has its agenda. I have tried to be fair and balanced but the way things are stacked in this country, it is no wonder so many people are brainwashed. If the media told the truth, these elections wouldn't even be close. There would be a 25 point spread in this country instead of the 50/50 as it is now. I am very disappointed that the Democrats are most definitely the group of intolerants in this country. After witnessing this first hand, there is only one person to vote for.

That is pretty sad, man. Sorry to hear of all that mess. And even worse that we didn't get to see it from your camera. :(

We are a swing state so I will get another chance. Both bush and Kerry will be back. I will have the camera fixed by then and do a documentary Michael Moore style. I don't get it. What this country needs is the free exchange of ideas. What a better place to do it than at a rally with people of differing backgrounds and ideologies. No wonder the country is so divided.

Now THAT was a long commentary by the liberal son of a conservative president. I'm proud of myself for actually reading all of it. And my conclusion? It's filled with empty accusations and baseless assumptions. Most of it is fluff that should have been edited out to shorten the article.

I wonder if he remembers what all the liberals were saying about his father during the 1980 election? "If you elect Ronald Reagan president, we'll be going to war tomorrow" and other doomsday prophecies. It didn't happen though. Most are in agreement that he was one of the greatest presidents ever.

Do you think Ronald Reagan Sr. would have put up with Saddam Hussein's crap? No way, he'd have gotten rid of him long ago one way or the other. Why? Does anyone actually believe that Saddam Hussein was not seeking nuclear weapons? And if he had gotten them, does anyone doubt that he wouldn't use them ASAP against the United States? I hate to break it to everyone, but Saddam was a threat to the US the same way that Charles Manson would be a threat to law-abiding citizens if we put him under house arrest instead of in prison. Sooner or later, someone's going to get hurt.

The part about Bush lying to the public because he wanted Saddam Hussein removed from the very beginning is like saying Elliot Ness lied about Al Capone being the head of organized crime, because he couldn't prove it. Maybe we should have just left Al Capone alone, he wouldn't have killed too many or extorted too much money, would he? I mean really, the only thing Al Capone was proven guilty of was tax evasion. Bush acted on the intelligence that was given to him, and based on that intelligence, he made the right decision. What if the intelligence turned out to be 100% true and Bush didn't invade? That would have been a mistake of the highest order.

There's a part in that commentary, too, about this being the only administration with a net loss of jobs. That's assuming the administration ended when that piece was written. It's not over yet. If you want to talk about lying, just listen to the numbers about lost jobs from various people during last weeks DNC. I heard 4 million lost jobs, 3 million, 2 million, 1.5 million. Which is it, who is lying and who is telling the truth? My point being (1) that jobs have been lost as a result of economic conditions, but we are in a recovery now so very quickly that number will be a net gain, and (2) the use of the term "liar" is inappropriate for someone who cites faulty information.

I could go on, but I've heard it over and over: "anyone but Bush". That's the kind of thinking that freed Barabbas. Look at the issues and what both candidates stand for and base your decisions on that. Be careful to seperate fact from fiction in the political fray (this includes Fahrenheit 911). Vote for the best candidate and your conscience will be clear.

I left out the comments by Kerry yesterday where he called the Bush supporters "goons". Very tolerant.

Additionally, I see that Nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan support Bush but that doesn't get any play in the media.

What I don't like is the liberal teachers at high school, well all teachers are liberals but they try to one side everything, from class room debates, to speech topics, My teacher really didnt like me justifing military spending in my speech I gave. I'm 17, Im turning 18 in Oct, and I know who I'm voting for November

And didn't you love Kerry's speech at the DNC last week? He continually bashed the "current leadership" without naming names (hmmm, I wonder who he was talking about) for 15 minutes, then made a plea to GW not to run a negative campaign against him. Talk about hypocrisy.

Even if all of that simplistic whinning were one hundred pecent true it does not make the democratic party and its sorry offering of the kerry ticket any more attractive.
Vote for the devil we know or the devil we don't, who features far left deviates and degenerates during its national convention as its public face.
Give America one good reason to vote for kerry other than the fact you cannot abide a republican in the white house. That's what seems to be the sole (public) goal of the democratic party since gore dropped the ball.
Unfortunatly most Americans know by now that the democrats and republicans are just flip sides of the same coin, both operated by and for rich, white, old men whose agenda is not in step with the MAJORITY of Americans.

Now THAT was a long commentary by the liberal son of a conservative president. I'm proud of myself for actually reading all of it. And my conclusion? It's filled with empty accusations and baseless assumptions. Most of it is fluff that should have been edited out to shorten the article.

I wonder if he remembers what all the liberals were saying about his father during the 1980 election? "If you elect Ronald Reagan president, we'll be going to war tomorrow" and other doomsday prophecies. It didn't happen though. Most are in agreement that he was one of the greatest presidents ever.

Do you think Ronald Reagan Sr. would have put up with Saddam Hussein's crap? No way, he'd have gotten rid of him long ago one way or the other. Why? Does anyone actually believe that Saddam Hussein was not seeking nuclear weapons? And if he had gotten them, does anyone doubt that he wouldn't use them ASAP against the United States? I hate to break it to everyone, but Saddam was a threat to the US the same way that Charles Manson would be a threat to law-abiding citizens if we put him under house arrest instead of in prison. Sooner or later, someone's going to get hurt.

The part about Bush lying to the public because he wanted Saddam Hussein removed from the very beginning is like saying Elliot Ness lied about Al Capone being the head of organized crime, because he couldn't prove it. Maybe we should have just left Al Capone alone, he wouldn't have killed too many or extorted too much money, would he? I mean really, the only thing Al Capone was proven guilty of was tax evasion. Bush acted on the intelligence that was given to him, and based on that intelligence, he made the right decision. What if the intelligence turned out to be 100% true and Bush didn't invade? That would have been a mistake of the highest order.

There's a part in that commentary, too, about this being the only administration with a net loss of jobs. That's assuming the administration ended when that piece was written. It's not over yet. If you want to talk about lying, just listen to the numbers about lost jobs from various people during last weeks DNC. I heard 4 million lost jobs, 3 million, 2 million, 1.5 million. Which is it, who is lying and who is telling the truth? My point being (1) that jobs have been lost as a result of economic conditions, but we are in a recovery now so very quickly that number will be a net gain, and (2) the use of the term "liar" is inappropriate for someone who cites faulty information.

I could go on, but I've heard it over and over: "anyone but Bush". That's the kind of thinking that freed Barabbas. Look at the issues and what both candidates stand for and base your decisions on that. Be careful to seperate fact from fiction in the political fray (this includes Fahrenheit 911). Vote for the best candidate and your conscience will be clear.


Heh just had to comment, I dunno maybe popular opinion is very different in other states, I know around here I dont think you would get regan on a short list of greatest presidents. Next thing ya know when bush SR. dies ppl will be saying the same about him lol. Regan was better then Bush though (both of them) for sure.

"anyone but bush" is a valid statement though. Some ppl are that fed up with his dealings that they know the other canidate is goin to be a better option for them. Most ppl I dont think are blindly saying it, not knowing who they are voting for, its more of just a saying ppl are coming up with. To them bush has done a bad enough job as president that to express this, instead of just saying oh im voting for Kerry, they say "anyone but bush". And that basically means the same thing, im voting for Kerry =p

What specifically has Bush done that is bad??? Cite some specifics.
I get a kick out of people saying Kerry has a better plan, but when I ask them for any specifics, they have no clue, because there are no specifics. Now Kerry is saying he can't revel any specifics because the Bush people will bash the ideas and render the ideas impossible to implement, so in essence, Kerry is asking people to vote for him based on faith that he will do good. I don't know about you, but I am not willing to take a "flyer" on a guy that can't list any specifics to his plan and seems to change his positions daily.

Millions of US jobs lost. Recreated a HUGE national deficit. Made no concerted effort to capture the real man behind 9/11, but instead went after his daddy's nemesis based on bad intel and questionable "concerns" and got over 900 of our troops killed in the process. Made a mess of our healthcare systems. Robbed Social Security to help his corporate buddies. Constantly attempts to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (if that's not ANTI-American, what is?). Essentially painted a big target on every American's back for the rest of the world to take aim at. Shall I go on?

Who would I prefer lead us into war?
A) A man who served TWO tours of duty in Vietnam, some in the line of fire?

B) A man who "might" have showed up for boot camp, but couldn't even finish it? He certainly served no time in the line of fire.

Seems pretty simple to me.

That article that's been circulating about Kerry and the marines in the Wendy's shouldn't be suprising to anyone. Service folks are..... ahem.... "trained" to follow the leader, even blindly.

Some have suggested that if Osama Bin Laden got caught by Nov that it'd be a big boost for Bush. Yeah, THAT would certainly help Bush, but it ain't gonna happen. Those two "families" might as well be cousins. Kissin' ones at that.

You've gotta give Clinton credit for getting our national deficit up out of the deep hole that 3 consecutive terms of republican "leadership" put it into. And how can anyone possibly back someone who put it back DEEP in the red in less than 4 yrs? C'mon people, wake up.

Who fooled who??

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep.. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1! 9, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ...... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and an! y nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Millions of US jobs lost.

As a result of the Dot.com bust (which started in 1999) and the repercusions of 9/11. Not Bush's fault!

Recreated a HUGE national deficit. Made no concerted effort to capture the real man behind 9/11, but instead went after his daddy's nemesis based on bad intel and questionable "concerns" and got over 900 of our troops killed in the process.
Read the previous post!

Made a mess of our healthcare systems.

Really? Examples??

Robbed Social Security to help his corporate buddies.



Constantly attempts to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (if that's not ANTI-American, what is?).

No. he just follows his own conscience. At least he has a belief system that's consistent!

Essentially painted a big target on every American's back for the rest of the world to take aim at. Shall I go on?

And you'd have rather we not react to attacks against Americans?

Who would I prefer lead us into war?
A) A man who served TWO tours of duty in Vietnam, some in the line of fire?

John Kerry served less than 5 months. What ARE you reading?

B) A man who "might" have showed up for boot camp, but couldn't even finish it? He certainly served no time in the line of fire.

Being in the National Guard does not guarantee anyone escape from wartime action. The Guard has been deployed this way in WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and Desert Storm.

Seems pretty simple to me.

That article that's been circulating about Kerry and the marines in the Wendy's shouldn't be suprising to anyone. Service folks are..... ahem.... "trained" to follow the leader, even blindly.

Maybe you're the one who's following blindly?
Swift Boat Vets for Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php)

Vietnam Vets NOT for Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)


Some have suggested that if Osama Bin Laden got caught by Nov that it'd be a big boost for Bush. Yeah, THAT would certainly help Bush, but it ain't gonna happen. Those two "families" might as well be cousins. Kissin' ones at that.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

You've gotta give Clinton credit for getting our national deficit up out of the deep hole that 3 consecutive terms of republican "leadership" put it into. And how can anyone possibly back someone who put it back DEEP in the red in less than 4 yrs? C'mon people, wake up.

The "economic boom" you give Clinton credit for started before he ever took office. Read more about how long it takes policies to effect the economy.

Millions of US jobs lost. 9/11 caused the loss of 1,000,000. Another 1,000,000 were lost with the tech bubble of 2000 before Bush took office. Outsourcing took the additional 1,000,000. Bush's tax policies added back 1,500,000 jobs to date (yes, some are lower paying). Outsourcing will not change. My businesses used to source 80% U.S. vs 20% overseas, now it is almost reversed. Blame the consumer that shops with their pocketbook looking for the lowest price for this trend. Plus the fact that manufacturing will always follow the lowest cost labor. Right now it is China. in 15-20 years, it will be Africa. Shouldn't all people around the world be entitled to increase their standard of living?

Recreated a HUGE national deficit. Bush inherited an economy slipping into recession caused by the internet bubble where "paper profits" were creating the revenues for the government.

Made no concerted effort to capture the real man behind 9/11, but instead went after his daddy's nemesis based on bad intel and questionable "concerns" and got over 900 of our troops killed in the process. Bush immediately sent troops to Afganistan and swished the Taliban. Just becasue we can't find Osama hiding in his 4x4 cave like we found Saddam in his 4x4 hole doesn't mean we won't eventually.

Made a mess of our healthcare systems. Guys like John Edwards who sue the health care system creating huge judgements is more to blame than anything else. We need "tort" reform and fewer paranhas like Edwards to bail out health care.

Robbed Social Security to help his corporate buddies. What!!!??? Cite an example of this.

Constantly attempts to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (if that's not ANTI-American, what is?). Are these the same beliefs that founded this country and are held by the majority that live here?

Essentially painted a big target on every American's back for the rest of the world to take aim at. Versus what, showing that we are spinless twits that turn the other cheek? I am pretty sure if I remember correctly that we were attacked unprovoked!!! Did I miss something here?

Shall I go on? Please do.

Who would I prefer lead us into war?
A) A man who served TWO tours of duty in Vietnam, some in the line of fire?
Is this the same guy that came back and said he created war atrosities and that US soldiers were raping and pillaging villages?



Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was launched on May 4, 2004 at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington. Eighteen Navy combat veterans and commanders went on the record opposing John Kerry's bid for the Presidency, including the entire chain of command above Lt. Kerry in Vietnam, and men who had fought at his side.

More than 250 Swift boat veterans have now signed an open letter (http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040629220813790) to Senator Kerry challenging his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief of America's armed forces.
-- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth



"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command." -- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth



"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'" -- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)



"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less." -- Andrew Horne



"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief." -- Jeffrey Wainscott

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.


It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General." -- Robert Elder



"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry gave numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians." -- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

That article that's been circulating about Kerry and the marines in the Wendy's shouldn't be suprising to anyone. Service folks are..... ahem.... "trained" to follow the leader, even blindly. Should I post even more stories about Kerry from all the other boat commanders that hated his guts? Did he actually get those medals for valor or were they given to him or do they not even exist?

Some have suggested that if Osama Bin Laden got caught by Nov that it'd be a big boost for Bush. Yeah, THAT would certainly help Bush, but it ain't gonna happen. Those two "families" might as well be cousins. Kissin' ones at that. I think Osama is already worm food.

You've gotta give Clinton credit for getting our national deficit up out of the deep hole that 3 consecutive terms of republican "leadership" put it into. Wrong! Remember Hillary's health care plan. You know the one. The one that led to the elections of 1994 creating a Republican Congressional majority for the first time in 40 years, that, and the advent of the internet were the 2 forces that created the temporary surpluses. Clinton did sign several measures though so I give him credit for that.

And how can anyone possibly back someone who put it back DEEP in the red in less than 4 yrs? C'mon people, wake up. Sometimes you got to spend money to make money and that is exactly what this country did. The full effects will not be seen for another 2-3 years. Maybe just in time for Kerry to win and take credit for it, right? The only reason Clinton won re-election was the fact that the economy was booming during the Internet runup. Without it, he was a gonner based on his performance in office.

I own a Caddy and a Lincoln. However, I actually drive an electric Ford Think most of the time because I can't afford the $2.79 per gallon that Chevron charges in my little town for 91 octane. Chevron made $4 billion in profits last quarter so they are doing pretty darn good. In fact they are conducting legalized thievery in California.

My Think is cute and uses $35 of electricity a year. It goes 35 mph top speed and insurance costs me $46 a year. I told the big guy about my Think and guess what? He's driving one too now. He's afraid we'll outsource his job to India and he's trying to save money. Anyway here's the picture a friend took. Honest, it's not been retouched. JB

http://blacklake.biz/bushg8.jpg

You got a picture of the Think. Sounds like a good vehicle to tool around in in a small town. $46 a year insurance? I guess I am subsidizing the insurance company's desires for fuel efficient vehicles. Even at 35 mph, people can still get hurt. i wonder why so low for the insurance. Any idea. I understand the safe driver, homeowner, etc. but I don't understand why they (insurance companies) feel they deserve such a low premium.

Not a very flattering picture of GW. He looks like he's sitting on the toilet.

High speed cameras clicking all day long will always supply pictures like that. It is unavoidable. What is shameful is to print them. Why can't we show respect for the President, Democrat or Republican, while they are in office? Why do we feel the need to try to tear them down. I am so sick of the TV and newspaper medias in this country. Thank the good Lord they are slowing sinking in relevance. I would rather have them running their stupid "reality" shows than to have their talking heads out there twisting facts all the time over matters of importance..

Not a very flattering picture of GW. He looks like he's sitting on the toilet.

And nothing is coming out, much to his dismay.

You got a picture of the Think. Sounds like a good vehicle to tool around in in a small town. $46 a year insurance? I guess I am subsidizing the insurance company's desires for fuel efficient vehicles. Even at 35 mph, people can still get hurt. i wonder why so low for the insurance. Any idea. I understand the safe driver, homeowner, etc. but I don't understand why they (insurance companies) feel they deserve such a low premium.http://blacklake.biz/cart42.jpg
Tooling around town is exactly what I do. I stay off the major highways. Insurance rates vary by company. 21st Century wanted $900 per year and State Farm wanted $46 for the same full $500,000 liability and collision. I have a website for NEV owners and there are 450 members. http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/NEVs/

JB

No video. On/off switch is broken. Bummer.

Talk about intolerance. I put on a GW pin and tried to enter the grounds and was turned back. I was told all Bush people had to be over across the street. So I go back and put on a Kerry pin and they let me in. Same 2 people at the gate even. I try to tell a TV crew what happened but they weren't interested. I went over to where the Bush supporters where. I would say about a 1000 people. They tried to drown out Teresa when she was speaking with "4 more years". Her response was pretty funny with "of hell". I didn't know I was living in hell? If this is hell, Heaven must be a 10 star hotel. LOL. So the nightly news comes on all gushing for 15 minutes about Kerry. They literally gave the Bush supporters 5 seconds and a far away shot from a block away. Once again the liberal media has its agenda. I have tried to be fair and balanced but the way things are stacked in this country, it is no wonder so many people are brainwashed. If the media told the truth, these elections wouldn't even be close. There would be a 25 point spread in this country instead of the 50/50 as it is now. I am very disappointed that the Democrats are most definitely the group of intolerants in this country. After witnessing this first hand, there is only one person to vote for.

Lol and you think its defferent the other way around? Bush was in town yesterday and a friend went to see, They made him take off his shirt to make sure there wasnt a kerry 1 under it. To me thats goin further then not letting ya in cause of a pin. No way would you have got in with a kerry pin, and they were making ppl take off there shirts to make sure nothing under them with kerry support showing.

Ill end it with ya. Republicans are most definitely the group of intolerants in this country. After witnessing this first hand, there is only one person to vote for.

Btw I dont really feel that way there are probly just as many intolerant dems as there are republicans, just had to throw it out cause the story goes both ways most of the time.

Looks like a fancy electric golf cart. Not a criticism but I don't see how that "car" can be street legal without doors, roll bar, 5 mph bumpers, etc. Or maybe I'm mistaken and it is all of those things. Still, for tooling around a small area, absolutely. Everyone should have one for just running to the grocery store and things like that.

How much are they?

There are so many things we as Americans could do to conserve energy. We could easily cut our consumption 25% without a major change in quality of life. Energy efficient light bulbs, turning things off when not in use. Combining trips. Planning ahead, etc.

Anyway, the "car" looks very practical for what you are using it for. I would love to be 18 and pick up a date with it. Making out in the back seat would be a little rough! LOL.

[QUOTE=MonsterMark]Looks like a fancy electric golf cart. Not a criticism but I don't see how that "car" can be street legal without doors, roll bar, 5 mph bumpers, etc. Or maybe I'm mistaken and it is all of those things. Still, for tooling around a small area, absolutely. Everyone should have one for just running to the grocery store and things like that.

How much are they?

The federal government approved a new vehicle type in 1998. It is called a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV). It has seat belts, saftey glass, lights, horn, license plates, hydralic brakes and it's about twice as fast a golf cart and can be driven on streets with 35 mph speed limits. One brand is a GEM car. It's website is: http://gemcar.com/ I paid about $5000 for mine and it's worth more today than when I bought it two years ago. I live in a very large gated community and I use it every day. I also go downtown which is 4 miles away but I take side streets and not the highway. A stock NEV goes 25 mph but many of us have reprogrammed our onboard computers to go 35 which is the speed of traffic on most side streets. They are about 500 pounds more than golf carts and there are 2 passenger and 4 passenger models. I think there are about 10,000 on California streets. They are quiet, fun and open air. In my community my Lincoln and Cadillac convertible are the norm but NEVs are what you drive to create a good impression. I also got $500 off my taxes last year for buying an electric vehicle and that was in addition to a $2000 cash rebate from Ford. For a time NEVs were receiving a $10,000 tax rebate in Arizona. So you made money if you bought one. I think the future is much more likely to be electric cars than hydrogen powered ones. JB

Lol and you think its defferent the other way around? Bush was in town yesterday and a friend went to see, They made him take off his shirt to make sure there wasnt a kerry 1 under it. To me thats goin further then not letting ya in cause of a pin. No way would you have got in with a kerry pin, and they were making ppl take off there shirts to make sure nothing under them with kerry support showing.


There's got to be more to that story than what you're saying.

JB, thanks for the info.

I'll do a little research on it instead of asking all these questions.

Humm, I wonder if I can use it on a golf course. Now there would be making an impression!! Buzzing by guys at 35 mph would be a blast. LOL.

Edit: Got the info...
How many miles will it run on a charge? 30 miles How long to charge? 4-8 hours.

The only problem I have with electric power is it still takes a considerable amount of energy to create that power so my opinion is that hydrogen will be the future unless we can come up with a cheaper way to produce electric power in massive quantities. More hydro-electric dams, wind power (my favorite), solar, maybe even capturing tidal movements, something else I am interested in.

Again, thanks for the info and kind replys even though it looks like we stepped on Joey's thread. Heck, he's not around so when the cats away, the mice will play. LOL.

Edit Again: So do some golf courses allow these things or are they too heavy? The reason I ask is my friend is looking to buy a golf cart and this may be way better and much cooler.

Lol and you think its defferent the other way around? Bush was in town yesterday and a friend went to see, They made him take off his shirt to make sure there wasnt a kerry 1 under it. To me thats goin further then not letting ya in cause of a pin. No way would you have got in with a kerry pin, and they were making ppl take off there shirts to make sure nothing under them with kerry support showing.

Ill end it with ya. Republicans are most definitely the group of intolerants in this country. After witnessing this first hand, there is only one person to vote for.

Btw I dont really feel that way there are probly just as many intolerant dems as there are republicans, just had to throw it out cause the story goes both ways most of the time.After further consideration, it is probably the only way to keep things fair. A Democratic leader should be able to speak to Democratic supporters without the harrassment, and the other way around. To bad it is the left that elevates harrassment to an art form.

Here's an idea. Instead of preaching to the choir, we should have all these town meetings like we are having but instead of Kerry talking to Democrats, 'W' gets to talk to them and vice-versa. Then people would really get a chance to form opinions about candidates. Imagine a crowd of 5000 people intently listening to what the other candidate has to say. That would politics that benefits the people!

Regardless of opinion i will say that this is the most heated presidential race i have ever seen. It seems as though the feelings go deep on this one.

Im with ya jhonnybz your not the only one.

Hey jhbowen, nice move with the think. Ive been working on plans for an electric ford ranger that i can take on the freeway and i agree with you on the gas prices.

Im not going to start pointing fingers about who is more qualified and whatnot because all have their strong convictions here, but i will just say i would like a change of ideas and a fresh take on things. Im going for Kerry.

By the way,

is it just the detroit area or i just catch it at the right time. The only ads i have seen from bush flame kerry and he has not had one ad talking about improvements or changes in the next term. Just curious.

I use my Think on the golf course and there are about six others on my home course. The two passenger models have golf course options that allow for two sets of clubs. All NEVs have a switch for street and for turf. You need to keep it in turf mode (lower speed and torque) on a golf course or you would not be welcomed back. I also have wide tires for turf. That's the way my Think is setup.

I live near Diablo Canyon, California. I thinki it is the world's largest nuclear generator. Electricity is pretty cheap and clean. Every 25 years they haul the nuclear waste to some mine in Nevada and they store it for 1000 years. When the world runs out of oil and natural gas we will need to switch to nuclear plants generating electricity and hydrogen. I think we will run out of oil in about 30 years. Gas will probably be $5 a gallon in two more years, especially with the impending civil wars in Iraq and Arabia. Global warming is real and is happening. It may be that we have to stop burning oil and coal in the next 10 years to just to keep the climate from running on crazy.
JB

http://blacklake.biz/photos/02.jpg


JB, thanks for the info.

I'll do a little research on it instead of asking all these questions.

Humm, I wonder if I can use it on a golf course. Now there would be making an impression!! Buzzing by guys at 35 mph would be a blast. LOL.

Edit: Got the info...
How many miles will it run on a charge? 30 miles How long to charge? 4-8 hours.

The only problem I have with electric power is it still takes a considerable amount of energy to create that power so my opinion is that hydrogen will be the future unless we can come up with a cheaper way to produce electric power in massive quantities. More hydro-electric dams, wind power (my favorite), solar, maybe even capturing tidal movements, something else I am interested in.

Again, thanks for the info and kind replys even though it looks like we stepped on Joey's thread. Heck, he's not around so when the cats away, the mice will play. LOL.

Edit Again: So do some golf courses allow these things or are they too heavy? The reason I ask is my friend is looking to buy a golf cart and this may be way better and much cooler.

, but i will just say i would like a change of ideas and a fresh take on things. Im going for Kerry.

This is what I'm talking about. "Anyone but Bush" is not a valid statement. You could be voting for the absolute worst man on the planet just because he isn't Bush. How many guys have broken up with one girl and started dating another just because she was different, then regret the decision? The new girl is often the *itch from hell! I'm not saying "don't vote for Kerry." Just get educated about the guy and know what you're getting into, because I believe that most Democrats do not. Many are saying that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils and my reply to that is "take a closer look."

Electricity is pretty cheap and clean. Every 25 years they haul the nuclear waste to some mine in Nevada and they store it for 1000 years. Problem with that is what happens when the casks start rotting out. These places will also turn out to be terrorist targets.

When the world runs out of oil and natural gas we will need to switch to nuclear plants generating electricity and hydrogen. I think we will run out of oil in about 30 years. I agree. I would like to see alot more conservation but with all the developing 3rd worlds, demand will skyrocket, so 30 years is pretty much my timetable also.

Gas will probably be $5 a gallon in two more years, especially with the impending civil wars in Iraq and Arabia. Yes, it is way too easy to disrupt supply, which is why the US needs an energy policy that promotes more drilling, alternative fuel sources, etc.

Global warming is real and is happening. It may be that we have to stop burning oil and coal in the next 10 years to just to keep the climate from running on crazy. Not convinced on that yet. The sun has been going crazy for the last several years. I am a believer in planet x. I think those two forces have more to do with the changes than anything else. The earth has gone through repeated climate changes without the influence of man so I can't necessarily peg this change on man just yet.

Solar, wind and water is where we are going to have to concentrate to get our energy sources from.

I saw the turf option and I figured that was what that was for. Also I figured fatter tires with that weight was needed. I sent the info over to my buddy so we'll see what he thinks. He lives right next to Tiziani golf carts so I don't know if he'll be swayed away. Take care.

This is what I'm talking about. "Anyone but Bush" is not a valid statement. You could be voting for the absolute worst man on the planet just because he isn't Bush. How many guys have broken up with one girl and started dating another just because she was different, then regret the decision? The new girl is often the *itch from hell! I'm not saying "don't vote for Kerry." Just get educated about the guy and know what you're getting into, because I believe that most Democrats do not. Many are saying that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils and my reply to that is "take a closer look."I agree. it is pretty scary when 25% of the population is willing to use that as an argument. Like the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for'".

This is what I'm talking about. "Anyone but Bush" is not a valid statement. You could be voting for the absolute worst man on the planet just because he isn't Bush. How many guys have broken up with one girl and started dating another just because she was different, then regret the decision? The new girl is often the *itch from hell! I'm not saying "don't vote for Kerry." Just get educated about the guy and know what you're getting into, because I believe that most Democrats do not. Many are saying that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils and my reply to that is "take a closer look."

How does this statement
but i will just say i would like a change of ideas and a fresh take on things. Im going for Kerry.

= "anyone but bush"?

Im not really seeing the connection. Someone saying they want a change of ideas and fresh take on things, isnt saying Anyone but Bush, there simply saying I dont really like what bush has done so far, I think Kerry will probly do a better job.

Someone that actually does say "anyone but bush" probly isnt blindly voting for Kerry either. They are most likly so fed up with what bush has done so far that they say "anyone but bush" to show there disgust with him.

The thought that everyone is running around goin I hate bush, anyone but bush, I dont care who im voting for, is silly.

The thought that everyone is running around goin I hate bush, anyone but bush, I dont care who im voting for, is silly.Yes, it is silly but it is also true.

Look at the polling. There is no real support for Kerry anywhere in the country. He won the nominattion because he was viewed by Democrats as the most "electable". That's it. One heck of a platform. Democrats are willing to give up all principles to win the White House back. That to me is sad.

Also, Kerry should have never trotted out those Vets at the Convention. What a spectacle. Who cares what the guy did when he was 21! I care what he has been doing the last 10-15 years which from what I can see, hasn't been much of anything except marrying up.

Here's how I see it, Kerry wins, raises taxes and more money initially flows into the treasury and he look like a hero. In the meantime, has has pulled the money out of the investment community, the economy starts slowing into a recession and the treasury goes deeper in the red. (Can't squeeze blood from turnip). Then the US population elects another Republican to fix the mess and the cycle continues. This is the same cyclic behavior since the Carter years.

Fortunately, only 2% of Democrats need to change their mind and vote their conscience for the guy that they know will do a better job on terror and do a better job of protecting us and keep the economy growing. At the end of the day, I would rather have Bush at the helm than a wishy-washy Kerry. We already had a President run by the polls. We need to keep one that runs by moral conviction. So I toss my hat in the ring for Bush.

How does this statement
but i will just say i would like a change of ideas and a fresh take on things. Im going for Kerry.

= "anyone but bush"?

Im not really seeing the connection. Someone saying they want a change of ideas and fresh take on things, isnt saying Anyone but Bush, there simply saying I dont really like what bush has done so far, I think Kerry will probly do a better job.



Forgive me, you didn't say quote unquote anyone but bush. That was a recurring theme of last weeks DNC that many democrats are echoing, and that echo is being heard in this thread just under different terms. You're statement does imply that you have no idea what Kerry stands for other than he'd run the country differently than Bush. That may be good enough for you, and that is your right, but I believe it is democracy at it's worst. I'm not trying to belittle you in any way, it's just that I am trying to spark interest in obtaining knowledge of the candidates. It's one thing to be told something by someone that you may not respect for whatever reason, and it's another to find out the same information on your own. At least election years are a good time for debate and the exchange of ideas and information. It's sifting through all the bs that's the hassle.

Forgive me, you didn't say quote unquote anyone but bush. That was a recurring theme of last weeks DNC that many democrats are echoing, and that echo is being heard in this thread just under different terms. You're statement does imply that you have no idea what Kerry stands for other than he'd run the country differently than Bush. That may be good enough for you, and that is your right, but I believe it is democracy at it's worst. I'm not trying to belittle you in any way, it's just that I am trying to spark interest in obtaining knowledge of the candidates. It's one thing to be told something by someone that you may not respect for whatever reason, and it's another to find out the same information on your own. At least election years are a good time for debate and the exchange of ideas and information. It's sifting through all the bs that's the hassle.

I love how you think you know me and can imply that I got no idea what im talking about and I just support Kerry blindly. Wow I guess you used your ESP on me.

Kbob, If you actually took the time to read the post you would see it was in response to what someone else said. Being I dont have the gift of ESP like you seem to think you have, I couldnt make a specific statement about what they thought about Kerry. I was just giving you a example of why they may have said it.

Kbob, If you actually took the time to read the post you would see it was in response to what someone else said. Being I dont have the gift of ESP like you seem to think you have, I couldnt make a specific statement about what they thought about Kerry. I was just giving you a example of why they may have said it.

If you want to attack me, that's fine. But your ESP is also lacking, bud, because my statement wasn't just referring to you as there are other posters on this thread. Hence a public forum. I was further explaining one of my previous posts. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, but don't stoop to stupid insults. And don't think you know me either cause obviously you don't. When you post something in public, it becomes public domain. And I have a right to rebut any seemingly misleading statements, whether they be by mistake or on purpose. If you know what you're talking about, just say so. But leave my esp out of it.

Civil discourse is preferred.

I just realized that Punisher was not the one I quoted first, it was Pepsi2185. So Punisher, you said that you didn't see the connection, but obviously someone else did due to their agreement. If you don't agree with my point of view, that's fine. My apology was directed toward Pepsi2185 because I thought he took offense. That one still stands if he did.

This is what I'm talking about. "Anyone but Bush" is not a valid statement. You could be voting for the absolute worst man on the planet just because he isn't Bush. How many guys have broken up with one girl and started dating another just because she was different, then regret the decision? The new girl is often the *itch from hell! I'm not saying "don't vote for Kerry." Just get educated about the guy and know what you're getting into, because I believe that most Democrats do not. Many are saying that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils and my reply to that is "take a closer look."


Just like what happen here (Canada). Everyone said anyone except Paul Martin, and yet we end up with him for another 4 years... Why, because they scared of Stephen Harper when he stated his real goals... And they were too scared he would win if they all voted for another third party...

So I guess in US there's some who would like to vote for an independant, but won't in case the guy they don't want to see (either Kerry or Bush) as a president might win if they do so... This is democracy when it isn't the amount of voice you get that makes you win, but the number of states...

kbob and monstermark
I really wish you would not assume i make foolhearty commentary based on unfounded hearsay. I said what i said because i was trying to add a little small talk. And if I may, i reread my response four times as to avoid being flamed by the political habbadashers of this forum. I was trying to remain neutral and Walk on eggshells around you guys to begin with, the strong opinoins in here. It seems as though I still got a backlash.

Punisher, i appreciate your defense.

Kbob, i appreciate your apology. I read the entire debate between you and driller in a previous post and I always respected you and recognized you as knowledgeable and informed.

Its not just "hes better than bush" i have a list about six pages long (as does punisher) of reasons of why i cannot take another four years of the same administration and even if kerry is totally full of BS i feel he will still run the country better.

Lets not flame each other here, remember they have the millions and we still have to work every day of our life. Either way they are going to tell us what we want to get them the money and power and we will still be sitting there fighting amongst each other with our ballots in our hand and ten bucks left in our pockets.

Big Joe

kbob and monstermark
I really wish you would not assume i make foolhearty commentary based on unfounded hearsay.

Its not just "hes better than bush" i have a list about six pages long (as does punisher) of reasons of why i cannot take another four years of the same administration and even if kerry is totally full of BS i feel he will still run the country better.


Big JoeBig Joe,

I do not believe in flaming anyone and go out of my way on this site to see that things remain civil without deleting posts, etc. In fact, Joey and I have only had a few instances where an inappropriate thread was removed. I believe all is fair in love and war, and I am not a political zealot. I went to my first political speech in my lifetime this week and was quite turned off by the whole process. All this preaching to the choir stuff. What I am intolerant of is the lies and deceptions, maybe on the part of both parties, but because I am conservative (and not afraid to admit it), I have a tendency to take a closer look at the liberal's message and exactly what is being said. When people like Michael Moore come out and produce a documentary full of lies and distortions, when people like John Kerry come out and make believe that what they accomplished in 4 months when they were 21 qualifies them for the biggest job on the planet, I have to stand up and be counted.

So let me say this. I enjoy political discussion. I pushed to have it allowed on this board where it is forbidden on many others. I don't like to go to "political boards" because that is where all the finatics are. A place like this board is a place where simple people like me and you can have a grown up discussion about things that really matter in our lives. We may not have the money and power of the politicians, but that does not mean that we cannot be heard. If I or any of our colleagues on the board get out of hand , let me or Joey know by PM and we will address it. I am more than willing to censor myself if necessary.

On the topic of having 6 pages of info, bring it on. Show me Kerry's plan to make this a better and safer country. Don't repeat the political mouthwash, tell us why you favor Kerry. I know I am willing to listen, but like I said, I won't allow lies to go unchallenged. That is the best way to have them turn into truth.

So have at it. Convince me or at least put up a good case for your side. I say your side, because even if you are not for Kerry, but rather against bush, you are still tilting the table in favor of liberal ideology in this country at the expense of conservative ideology, and for me, that is not a good thing.

Take care.

kbob and monstermark
I really wish you would not assume i make foolhearty commentary based on unfounded hearsay. I said what i said because i was trying to add a little small talk. And if I may, i reread my response four times as to avoid being flamed by the political habbadashers of this forum. I was trying to remain neutral and Walk on eggshells around you guys to begin with, the strong opinoins in here. It seems as though I still got a backlash.Big JoeBig Joe, I reread what you posted. I do not believe I was assuming your comment was foolhearty. I just don't understand the argument. People should vote FOR a candidate, not against one. That way of thinking is convoluted to me. And hopefully you feel you didn't receive a backlash, because none was intended, at least on my part. The problem with the english language when it lacks syntax is that it can easily be misunderstood. So please take that into account when reading and posting. What may seem as an attack is just an emotional response. I always give the benefit of the doubt to the poster, at least several times, before taking a different stance with that individual.

I would LOVE to hear the liberal point of view but I find it very hard to create a meaningful dialogue based on the issues. Hopefully some of us can provide that dialogue for the benefit of the members and maybe some of the lurkers will chime in. Put your toes in the water guys, the water's great!http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

HILLARY RIPS BUSH: WARNS OF 'IRREPARABLE HARM' TO NATION

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton blasts President Bush and his "radical" administration on Saturday for attempting to dismantle the "central pillars of progress in our country during the 20th century."

Clinton makes the comments to Saturday editions of the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, sources tell DRUDGE.

The former first lady says she has become convinced the Republican administration wants "to undo the New Deal," the Roosevelt-era policies that ushered in Social Security and a host of other governmental assistance programs.

She said that Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, had taken a "hard-right turn to pursue an extremist agenda" after moving into the White House.

"I don't know where it came from, but the fact is that this President Bush has not only been radical and extreme in terms of Democratic presidents but in terms of Republican presidents, including his own father," she says.

She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world."

"We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done," she adds.

"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."

This is exactly the type of leftist drivel I am talking about. The LEFT is the party seeking to divide. These comments are coming from an individual most likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. You want to see a divided country? Wait till Hillary runs. I guess I dislike her as much as some people hate Bush. Her comments are irresponsible but will be lauded by many.
This divide will grow greater, maybe even leading to our own civil war when the silent majority rises up and says enough is enough.

To all:

When I reply to something, I normally try to find a common ground to agree with first so as not to seem offensive. You'll see me post often "I agree with your statement . . . " or whatever. I'll be the first to make fun of myself. I try to word things concisely and to the point, but hopefully not too harsh. I try not to name names when someone agrees with me so that I don't seem like I'm ganging up on someone. I don't want to suppress any ideas. Debating over the internet can be misinterpreted and confusing at times and I understand that and I have been confused at times and I misinterpret at times. But all any of us can go by is what is posted, and that is what is being debated here. In a debate, points are given and rebutted. That's how it is. I have changed my opinion on certain things many times due to some informed person refuting my beliefs by giving me the truth.

I, too, appreciate having a political forum. Not having one simply because some people may blow a gasket about the content is unfair to all. Monstermark is right, on political boards you'll see a lot of topics delve into cursing, insults, and name-calling. That is just sad to me.

The fellah from Canada has some good points. Bush Sr. can say that Perot lost him the 92 election, and Gore can say the same about Nader in 2000. But whoever wins this November, he'll be the president of the United States and my leader and I'll respect him as such.

I do not believe in flaming anyone and go out of my way on this site to see that things remain civil without deleting posts, etc. In fact, Joey and I have only had a few instances where an inappropriate thread was removed.

If I or any of our colleagues on the board get out of hand , let me or Joey know by PM and we will address it. I am more than willing to censor myself if necessary.


I concurr......All I ask is this.

Keep it civil.

We are all friends here. We all have differing opinions, and that is a great thing. Expressing them is also a great thing. But at the end of the day, we are all on the same team. We are all Americans and we all want the best for our country. Point being, debate and discuss to your heart's content. Just do it with respect for the other guy and respect for his right to have his own opinions.

I dont want to sound like a crybaby either, LOLOL. As one of you said earlier, if you cant stand the head get out of the kitchen.

This forum is a compilation of some of the most knowledgeable people on the net that i know. Way beyond just lincolns and cadillacs!! I love the way this forum goes beyond simple repairs into forums that allow other topics. By all means dont let me stop the topic, go on. I enjoy you all backing up yourselves with information, its better than watching news. By the way i am 90% of the time conservative, except for grandholm and kerry.

By Tim Ahmann



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The productivity of U.S. businesses rose at a swifter-than-expected pace in the second quarter but labor costs still gained at their fastest rate in two years, a sign of building corporate cost pressures.

Nonfarm business productivity rose at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the Labor Department said on Tuesday, well ahead of the 2 percent expected by Wall Street but a slowdown from the first quarter's 3.7 percent advance.

It was the smallest productivity gain since the fourth quarter of 2002, but strong enough to convince economists it would still help provide a brake to inflation.

Growing output by workers tamps down price pressures by allowing companies to produce more without higher wage bills.

The productivity slowdown contributed to a rise in the cost of labor per unit of production, which may get noticed by Federal Reserve officials meeting on Tuesday to mull interest rates.

Unit labor costs gained at a 1.9 percent clip as hourly compensation, which includes wages and benefits, rose at a sharp 4.9 percent rate.

"These numbers will probably be of concern to Fed policy-makers if the trend continues," said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons in St. Louis.

Because labor represents the biggest production expense for businesses, the rise in unit labor costs suggests worker compensation could begin eroding profits unless firms can raise their selling prices.

The rise in unit labor costs was just below the 2 percent increase forecast by private economists. U.S. stock markets welcomed the report, with the blue chip Dow Jones industrial average up nearly 78 points near midday. U.S. bonds and the dollar shrugged off the data as traders kept their focus on the Fed meeting. An announcement by the central bank is expected at around 2:15 p.m.

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/081204/media.php?media=bush.wmv

MSNBC.com
Tax burden shifts to the middle
New report could roil presidential campaign

By Jonathan Weisman
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:04 a.m. ET Aug. 13, 2004


WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Indeed, the study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

Stark conclusions
The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members of both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.

They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.

"Are the rich paying their fair share?" asked one GOP aide. "Yeah. They're paying more."

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

Limits to analysis
The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

Congressional Republican aides said that the CBO analysis has its limitations. For instance, it assumes that the beneficiaries of business tax cuts passed in 2002 and 2003 are the taxpayers who own stocks, bonds and other stakes in the businesses that received the reductions. But that analysis does not consider new workers hired because of the tax cuts, or higher wages that may have been granted because of the boost to the bottom line.

It also does not reflect that during the 1990s, the tax rates on lower-income households fell considerably due to an expansion of the earned income tax credit and other forms of low-income relief. In that sense, GOP aides said, tax cuts for the wealthy were overdue.

Besides, Holt said, looking narrowly at the distribution of tax cuts ignores the broader benefits -- such as investment, consumer spending, and job creation -- that flow from leaving more money in people's hands and which are spread far more evenly through the economy.

"Tax relief is about fairness, but it's also about economic growth," he said. "So the president's tax relief was both fair and effective, when it comes to bringing us from recession to growth."

But Republicans predicted that Kerry will make the report a major political event, and Furman said the results will be too stark to spin.

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before," he said.


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

The Top 20% of tax payers pay 80% of ALL the federal taxes. If people would read the whole report, that same report would show that although the marginal rate went down, the OVERALL amount of taxes collected from these same (rich) people WENT UP!!!! The government actually collected more money. Imagine that. The same thing happened in the Reagan years. Rates went down, receipts went up. People need to get a clue.

I wish we could put an end to all this class warfare b.s. It is really getting tiring.

Here's a nice example of class warfare. One man, one vote, right. Why does the guy that pays no taxes have the same voice as the guy that pay 100 times more?

the OVERALL amount of taxes collected from these same (rich) people WENT UP!!!! The government actually collected more money. Imagine that. The same thing happened in the Reagan years. Rates went down, receipts went up. People need to get a clue.



I wonder how those people salaries' performed during the same time period.....

Is it possible that more rich people made more money and the poorer people made less, possibly due to unemployment or underemployment?

Here's a nice example of class warfare. One man, one vote, right. Why does the guy that pays no taxes have the same voice as the guy that pay 100 times more?

100 x 0 = 0

I'd say they deserve the same "voice". ;)

LOL. I knew I was gonna get it for that one. Your arithmetic is excellent.

I feel like Ross Perot with the charts and stuff. LOL.

Hey - I liked ross perot!

Now post the chart that shows who makes the most and compare.......... The richest pay the most, but as a group they make the most.

Found a new website...........


http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

Hey - I liked ross perot!

Now post the chart that shows who makes the most and compare.......... The richest pay the most, but as a group they make the most.Your killing me Jim!!!

As reported by Geoffrey Colvin in the August issue of Fortune Magazine...(paraphrasing here) The $200,000-plus group as their incomes got clobbered in 2001 and 2002, actually paid a higher percentage in income tax. The article goes on to mention that much of America pays no income tax. 40% of Americans actually have a negative income tax rate and get money back from the Earned Income Credit.

From Fortune..."The 20% of Americans with the highest incomes took in 52% of total income but paid 83% of America's income taxes in 2001. The top 10% paid 70% of total income taxes. The beleaguered $200,000-plus group were just 2% of tax filers and made 23% of total income , but they paid 41% of total income taxes."

This same old tired argument of class warfare from the Democrats surfaces every 4 years as they attempt to make the rich in this country the enemy. We should be encouraging people to become successful. I know I want my kids to be able to enhance the quality of their children's lives, much the same way my dad worked hard to enhance his kids lives. What is so wrong with that? The rich already pay their fair share. I would argue that it is actually the bottom 40% that need to step up to the plate to maintain many of the services they have come to believe they are "entitled" to.

Peace.

Jim?

I'll bet $100 those statistics are skewed. They definitely don't take into account the necessities of life. I wonder what the rates would look like after you correct for base living expenses.

And I love this quote: "beleaguered $200,000-plus group", cry me a f*cking river. All of you here who make over $200,000 a year, I ask you: Have you ever been in a situation where you were ripping up carpet to find quarters so you could eat? Begging people for money so you could get home? Do you think I, and other people who are living paycheck to paycheck or living off the good graces of their parents, actually CARE about your "plight", if you can even call it that? At that level, you have more disposible income per year than I have ever seen in one place. Meanwhile I'm eating cheese sandwiches and getting denied jobs left and right.

Rant off for now.

I'll bet $100 those statistics are skewed. They definitely don't take into account the necessities of life. I wonder what the rates would look like after you correct for base living expenses.

And I love this quote: "beleaguered $200,000-plus group", cry me a f*cking river. All of you here who make over $200,000 a year, I ask you: Have you ever been in a situation where you were ripping up carpet to find quarters so you could eat? Begging people for money so you could get home? Do you think I, and other people who are living paycheck to paycheck or living off the good graces of their parents, actually CARE about your "plight", if you can even call it that? At that level, you have more disposible income per year than I have ever seen in one place. Meanwhile I'm eating cheese sandwiches and getting denied jobs left and right.

Rant off for now.

I'd also contend that those figures don't include income from investments, which are also taxed and cause the numbers to seem more dramatic than they really are.

Hey, I'm all for encouraging folks to do better and carry more weight. However the folks that make the big $$ can afford to carry more weight. To to otherwise would divide this country further into those who have and those who have not. That just makes this "class warfare" situation worse, not better. There is no escaping "class warfare".

Let me add that without some societal forces to push the "classes" together (ex: heavier tax load on the rich), our country will eventually degrade back to the royalty-vs.-pesants situation which is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the main reasons so many of our ancestors came to this great country to escape.

The rich have always paid a disproportionate share. Nothing new here. It only makes sense.

Realize also, that the poorer folks, tend to spend their money on consumer goods, driving the economy. The rich tend to invest their money, some of it overseas. DO you think Bill Gates spends less on consumer goods cause of his taxes? But the lower income people spend every nickel that is left after taxes. Thats how the rich got rich, selling crap to the lower income people.

I have a friend who's favorite line was to say...Your killing me slim. I changed it to Jim.Jim?

The rich have always paid a disproportionate share. Nothing new here. It only makes sense.

Realize also, that the poorer folks, tend to spend their money on consumer goods, driving the economy. The rich tend to invest their money, some of it overseas. DO you think Bill Gates spends less on consumer goods cause of his taxes? But the lower income people