<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, September 06, 2004

Kerry takes 457th position on Iraq



Senator John Kerry always ready to say something different is once again against the war in Iraq.

Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said he'd try to bring them all home in four years.

White at Harvard in the mid 1960's Kerry gave speeches about being against the war in Vietnam. Then he volunteered for action. Then once he came home was once again anti-war.

Back in '97 Kerry was stumping to invade Iraq, he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2002 but then voted against spending any money on it. After the no vote on funding he went into the Democratic primaries calling himself an "anti-war" candidate. But at the DNC in Boston he draped himself in the flag and stated that his 4 months on a small boat in Vietnam made him better prepared to finish the fight and win the war than Bush. After the convention he even stated knowing now what he knows he would still voted to authorize the invasion. But that was last month today it's the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". I wonder what his position will be on Nov 2nd?

Kerry's numbers peaked back before the Democrats convention. He was slowly losing ground all summer until right before the Republican convention when polls started to show Bush taking a lead. Now after the RNC in NY Bush has a 7 to 11 point lead over Kerry depending on the poll. So if the election were today Kerry'd get wiped off the map but the election is not today. Kerry has seven weeks left and 7-11 points can be made up in that time. Let's say it's the start of the 3rd quarter and Kerry is down 24 - 3. It's not panic time but he needs action. The question is if pretending the worlds most powerful and fastest growing post industrial economy is in ruin while beating the "anti-war" drum is the right plays to call.

Of course right about now Chris Matthews would ask me if I actually thought Kerry was a football team.
(0) comments

Media continues Kerry lie



Major media ever ready to carry the Kerry torch continue to focus only on the number that the Democrats want to be looked at.

Although payroll jobs have grown by 1.7 million in the last 12 months, the economy still has lost 913,000 jobs overall since Bush took office.

By saying "lost X jobs overall" the AP is trying to impress upon the unsuspecting reader that there are 913,000 fewer people working since Bush took office when the fact is there are 2.8 million more people working. It's a false image that the DNC wants to present as they have painted themselves into a corner with their constant pessimism.
(0) comments

Kerry lies about the economy.



John Kerry in keeping with the tradition of the Democratic party being the party of negativism where only they can save us from the cesspool we find ourselves in through more government programs and higher taxes has taken the announcement of the August job figures as further proof of our failed economy.

"Yesterday morning, once again, we received disappointing news about job
creation here in America. The newest numbers show that this past month, we
simply haven't created enough new jobs," Kerry said in a radio address.
"President Bush is now certain to be the first president since Herbert Hoover
and the Great Depression who didn't create a single new job," he added.


Yes. 144,000 new jobs and an unemployment rate lowering to 5.4% is definitely something you should compare to the Great Depression. Kerry must feel the need to attack Bush on the economy but he's insane to point to growth indicators as proof of ruination.

"Over the past three years, we've lost 1.6 million jobs in the United States. And to make matters worse, the new jobs were creating pay an average of 9,000
dollars less than the ones we've lost," Kerry went on.


Bullshit. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2001 we had 6.8 million unemployed while last month we had 8.0 million. A difference of 1.2 not 1.6. So the Kerry campaign is either lying to really bad at math and neither bodes well for a Presidential administration. Even so the Dems and their willing helpers in the establishment media have won by being able to frame the debate over unemployment only, which is only one tiny part of the equation. Let's look at another number. In 2001 the number of those employed was 136.9 million. So according to Kerry we should have (136.9-1.6=135.3) only 135.3 million working or 135.7 million is you use the correct number. However the Labor numbers show that in August there were 139.6 million working. That's an employment increase of 2.7 million yet Kerry claims not one single job has been created. Kerry and the left feed off of bad news a negativity and if things are doing better will just lie with the comfort that the media will cover for them.

"All across America, people who are working are working hard. They are working two jobs, three jobs, they're working weekends, just to get by." "Parents are sitting at kitchen tables and wondering how they're going to make ends meet: How they're going to buy back-to-school clothes this week, and still pay last weeks doctor bill,


This is tripe. Feelgood boiler plate that after a moments thought is empty of any meaning. Kerry is going to be using the terms, "just to get by" and "making ends meet" often in the next two months and any one that thinks this means he has a plan to fix it is end wrong. Struggling to get by has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with ones debit load versus their income. You can make $20k and always be ahead on your bills or you can make $150k and be on the verge of bankruptcy. Kerry is out there finding people who have no personal fiscal responsibility and therefore spend more then they make to tout as proof Bush has ruined the economy. But unless the Senator plans on making sure everyone has more money than they can spend it's just empty stump speeches. And how is he going to stop people form working 2-3 jobs? Outlaw part time work? "I'm John Kerry. If you put me in the White House I'll see to it that everyone has more money than they can spend, that people are only allowed to work one fulltime job and no businesses will ever require people to work on weekends." Now that I think about it I can see that it will work. Since no one can do any shopping, as all the stores on closed on the weekends then you will have more money that you can spend.

And for the part of the complicit press...

He made the most of lukewarm job creation data from Friday, pointing to the 144,000 jobs created in August and the drop in the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent -- its lowest since October 2001.


Lukewarm? This August has capped one of the strongest one year periods of growth in the US economy ever but the press always totes the DNC line.

(0) comments

Friday, September 03, 2004

Silent no more.


I've had about as much as I can stomach of the establishment media's constant hypocrisy and dishonesty. I've heard enough double talk, condensation and twisted half truths from Kerry/Edwards as I can take. I don't have a job so I was able to watch a lot of both conventions and if I was going to vote for Bush before I'd want to vote twice for him now.

I'm going to start with Kerry's speech he gave right after the end of the RNC on Thursday night and an article about it from the New York Times (where else?)

For the past week, they have attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief,". "Well, here is my answer to them," Mr. Kerry said to cheers. "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could've and who misled America into Iraq."

OK Senator, so now you are Bush "misleading" again but wasn't it just 3 weeks ago you said that you still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war even if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found? I don't see how you can fault Bush for Iraq if you where gung-ho WMD or no? Senator if WMD is moot as you claimed back in August then Bush's, "misleading" regarding WMD is also moot. Is this more of Kerry's infamous flip-flopping? I don't think so, I feel it's more evident of a trend in the left of late where they feel they can say anything and on one will call them on it, part of which is probably the blame of the establishment media's refusal to do much more than repeat the Democratic talking points. Well answer the phone Senator cause I'm calling you. Oh, and what is that about. "those who refused to server"? Since when is flying a jet fighter in the Air National Guard with the possibility of being called up "refusing" to serve? So now I guess everyone that was in the National Guard are cowards for refusing to serve their country... but more on this in a moment. (Kerry urges Iraqi invasion)

"The vice president called me unfit for office last night," Mr. Kerry said. "Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."

And the moments up. Here's the deal Senator and Mr. McAuliffe way back in 1992 when you guys were running an admitted draft dodger against a WWII hero you kept yammering about how messed up that time was and how whether or not one served shouldn't matter. I bought it when I voted for Clinton. In fact you said the exact same thing again in 1996 running the same draft dodger against another WWII hero that was disfigured for life when he got his Purple heart. I didn't hold Clinton's true "refusal to serve" against him then and I still don't now so I find it very disingenuous of you to ask me to hold it against Bush and Cheny. No. You can't take it back. You talked me into giving Bill and pass and I'll be God dammed if you are going to stop me from giving the same to W and Dick.

"Let me tell you in no uncertain terms what makes someone unfit for office and unfit for duty," Mr. Kerry said, turning to Mr. Bush. "Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this country. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care for four years makes you unfit to lead this country.

Again with the moot "mislead" line? Let's see, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, there were a few massive business scandals that crashed to Earth early in the term but started falling long before Bush was in office and then there was that 9/11 thing you so wish would just go away. In the process over all employment in the US went down about 2.2 million so technically "millions of jobs" where lost but only a couple, not a few. As for Bush not doing anything? I seem to remember a big tax cut that you said would ruin the economy - cause we all know nothing gets an economy churing faster than high taxes, just ask the French - but Bush was able to get it past congress by making it temporary. And then the strangest thing happened, right after the tax cut took effect business investment started to increase and the economy started growing again - that's a coicodence so weird it must be Swedish. In the past 12 months we have added 1.7 million new jobs, we have one of the worlds lowest unemployment rates at 5.4% and a rapidly growing economy but to listen to you it's 1934 souplines all over again. But if we put you in office you say you can fix our ruined economy by repealing the "tax breaks for the rich" and creating job training programs. Senator, if you take money away from the rich, whom by my reckoning do most of the hiring around here exactly what jobs will these centers be training people for? Now for the million uninsured. First of all see here for the truth on that rather large statistic that the Dems will be repeating over and over for the next 2 months but for the sake of this we'll just stick with the CPS's number of 43.6 million, not Kerry's inflated 45 million and not sweat the details. The thing is that the number of uninsured has been hovering between 43 and 44 million since 1998 - long before Bush was in office. But to hear it from Kerry you'd think these 43.6 million sprang out of nowhere during the Bush administration and that conservatives get pleasure out of the suffering, well at least that's what Clinton said at the DNC in Boston. Both Kerry and Bush have plans to address the issue which is good but only Bush as gone into detail on his plan. Kerry has kept quiet because his would require a tax increase beyond merely repealing the Bush tax cuts and that won't sell. The bottom line is that Bush wants to create an environment where the true working poor that are slipping through the gaps can get affordable coverage and have better choice while Kerry wants to create a government infrastructure to administer out insurance taking a step towards the left's utopian goal of a nationalized health care system. I dated a Canadian and am now engaged to a Brit. I've seen the Canadian and British systems and though I'm happy to say we need improvement/reform in our system a step towards what they have is a step in the wrong direction.


"Letting the Saudi royal family control the price of oil for Americans makes you unfit to lead this country. Handing out billions of dollars in government contracts without a bid to Halliburton while you're still on the payroll makes you unfit lead this country



Huh? Saudis? Halliburton? Is this John Kerry or Michael Moore speaking? On Halliburton you either believe in the conspiracy theories or you don't. It's a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. But I have to say I'm a bit confused buy the line about "letting" the Saudi's control oil. What praytell Senator would you do to take the control away from them? Allow drilling in ANWR and off the gulf coast so we can glut the market and lower oil prices? Have a real "war for oil" by invading Saudi Arabia and confiscating the oil fields? Just what would you do sir? Oh and by the way if that makes Bush unfit then just what was Carter and Clinton doing at the DNC in Boston. Why would you want the endorsement of 2 ex-Presidents who were by your definition "unfit" for office?

Not wanting to be left out the little lawyer that could had this to say...

Mr. Edwards, introducing Mr. Kerry, called the attacks on him amazing. "They'll say just about anything, won't they?" Mr. Edwards asked. "He wasn't wounded quite often enough, is that it?



They'll? Don't you mean "We'll"? Anyway, Dems have since the election in 2000 spit nothing but hatred out for anyone outside of their party, Republican, Green anyone. And during that same time have over reacted with charges of racism, hatred and crying of general meanness to anything said against them no matter how tame. Everyone knows and understands that both parties will hit below the belt but I've had it with the Dem crying foul everytime there is a perceived slight. Moveon.Org runs ads equating Bush to Hitler and the Whitehouse ignores it. Moore claims Bush knew about 9/11 and was paid off by the Saudis and the Whitehouse spokesman simply says the "truth will win out". Swiftboat Veterans for Truth say they served with Kerry and they don't think he's fit for office and the Dems threaten to sue TV stations if the don't pull the ad. Many anti-Bush books are published with outrageous claims, one even talking about how to assassinate the President and the White House just ignores it. One person writes a book based on the Swifties for Truth and the Dems first try to sue the publisher and then try to bully the stores into pulling the book. The Democratic Party - Defenders of Free Speech! as long as we agree with it. All the while the Establishment Media(EM) goes right along with it. The EM can't mention the Swifties for Truth without reminding everyone that a Texas Republican gave them $100k and they make the connection as if that's the proof needed to show the Swifties claims are false. Yet at the same time they never once mention the millions George Soros and other uber rich leftists have given to their 527's groups. Kerry calls on Bush to renounce the Swifties for Truth without ever renouncing the leftist 527 groups. The hypocrisy runs so deep it could float a battleship and the Dems and the EM have deluded themselves into thinking no one notices. The WWII generation is still awed by color while the Boomers grew up at a time when the EM ruled the land. We Gen Xers however dust our parents when it comes to media savvy. I grew up watching Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings, I know the games they play. Gen Y coming up behind me is even more media savvy and I think it goes part way to explaining why the trend is for the younger people to be more and more conservative... but more on that another day. Getting back to Mr Edwards. The worst aimed at Kerry in New York was Zell Miller's speech in which he did the unforgivable sin of - drum roll please - reviewing Kerry's voting record. This is equated by Edwards to be on par with getting wounded in action.

If Kerry's skin is that thin perhaps he is "unfit" for duty.


(9) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?