October 5th, 2004
In spite of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are saying at their well orchestrated rallies, I’ve begun to get the sense that the Bush/Cheney ticket’s heart is not in it. Here’s what I mean. During the VP debate there were various moments where Mr. Cheney simply refused to retort or to elaborate on a point; and, in those moments, I sort of got the distinct impression, Hey, this guy’s heart is not in it… he’s just giving up and is not fighting back. In the other hand, Mr. Edwards just kept on going right at Mr. Cheney. Man, Mr. Edwards was relentless.
Do Bush/Cheney simply figure, Hey, we’ve created such a mess that it might just be easier to leave it to someone else to clean up.
October 5th, 2004
During The Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney Said The First Time He Met Edwards Was At The Debate That Night.
During the first vice presidential debate, Vice President Cheney said:
“In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the senate, the presiding officer, I’m in the senate most tuesdays in session. The first time I met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”
HOWEVER!
Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast.
Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast, Cheney said:
“Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.”
[FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
—————————————
The question then becomes, what other lies have Bush/Cheney told us?
October 4th, 2004
Faux News just can’t help it self. The Republican bias of Faux News is so blatant that its reporters almost trip over themselves trying to tow the Republican party line. This is precisely the reason why Faux News has had to apologize for the second time this week for going public with what were clearly bogus anti-Kerry items.
The “Communist for Kerry” group first came to my attention when several bloggers noted that a news item on the Faux News website mentioned the parody group as a legitimate organization supporting the Democratic candidate. Of course, by now the news item has been rectified to reflect that the organization is bogus, and the following was added to the online article:
Editor’s Note:
In a version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry group was portrayed as an organization that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. The Communists for Kerry group is, in fact, a parody organization.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134268,00.html
October 4th, 2004
Here are just two glaring examples of Republican dirty tricks by two self-described Republican organizations:
1. Some have desperately tried to make the link between “communists” and Mr. Bush’s opponent. Hmmm, I wonder where such ridiculous and caricaturist allegations could’ve sprung from? Oh, let me guess, how about from the minds of Republicans:
The group behind “Communists for Kerry” ( http://www.communistsforkerry.com/ ) is a Republican organization called the Hellgate Republican Club. Incredibly enough, the Hellgate Republican Club ( http://www.hellgate.org/disclaimer/ ) has the gall to call itself a “non-partisan” organization.
2. Clearly Mr. Nader was a factor in the 2000 election. Not daring to leave anything to chance in 2004, Mr. Bush’s supporters want to give their candidate every possible advantage — given how little faith many of them actually have on Mr. Bush. Accordingly, just as Republican organizations have done elsewhere, the Michigan Republican Party worked to get Mr. Nader 40,000 signatures to try to place him that state’s ballot:
“The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state’s November ballot.” [ July 19, 2004 ]
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jul18.html
These are just two examples. I wonder what else our good friends at the GOP have in stored for the American public — an “October Surprise,” perhaps!?
Let the guessing games begin… perhaps Osama Bin Ladin will emerge from his hiding place in the caves of Tora Bora… or from the mountain ranges of Pakistan… who knows.
October 1st, 2004
Mr. Bush’s entire platform can be condensed to these bumper sticker slogans: “strong,” “steadfast,” “resolute,” “keeping our word,” “never waver,” “stay on the offensive,” “lead,” “we cannot send mixed messages.” Yet, aside from the immediate and superficial impact of these slogans, Mr. Bush’s rhetoric is completely empty.
However, when asked to go beyond the five second sound-bytes, Mr. Bush cannot even begin to outline why we’re in Iraq (First it was WMDs; then it was, Saddam is a bad man; this then became, We’re bringing freedom to the Iraqi people; and now, Mr. Bush simply says, We can’t leave because we have to be resolute.); Mr. Bush can’t even begin to outline why we cannot afford the security measures we so desperately need (i.e., shipment container security, more FBI personnel, etc.), simply because he squandered the largest surpluses our nation had seen when his massive tax-giveaways were enacted. I ask, when in history has a nation passed tax-giveaways when at war? War, after all, is precisely the time when a nation must rely on the treasury to finance the war effort. (I’m speaking of an actual “hot” war, as this president reminds us by anointing himself a “war time president.”)
Last night’s presidential debate crystallized John Eisenhower’s, son of President Eisenhower (Republican), endorsement of Mr. Kerry for me. Here’s what Mr. Eisenhower wrote in his endorsement:
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
[...]
“The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar.”
[...]
“In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.”
—————————————
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
