Bush...

Make all the excuses you want, but you are attacking his character and his likeness. I guess I should be happy that you can find nothing of substance to attack him on except some dumb picture. I know you liberals are getting really desperate here. But that doesn't change the fact ART that you seem to pride yourself on not using name calling as part of your smear campaign yet you revert to name calling as you see fit. You my friend are a hypocrite. Deny it all you want. I don't care.

There are a million things I could say about Kerry regarding him as a person, but I choose to take the high road and attack on the issues. Why? Well, because it's so easy. I would only revert to name calling when I had nothing left in my barrel to use. You my friend I guess have already reached that point. This bodes very well for Bush in November.

 

Bush is an idiot, a moron, a dolt as evidence by photos like these:















Now take the images, and add these quotes from Bush:

"A RESULTS-ORIENTED ADMINISTRATION… WILL MAKE AMERICA WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE-A LITERATE COUNTRY AND A HOPEFULLER COUNTRY."-WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 11, 2001

"I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTIONER. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTIONERS THE QUESTION THEY'VE BEEN QUESTIONING. AUSTIN, TEXAS, JAN. 8, 2001

"I DO REMAIN CONFIDENT IN LINDA. SHE'LL MAKE A FINE LABOR SECRETARY. FROM WHAT I'VE READ IN THE PRESS ACCOUNTS, SHE'S PERFECTLY QUALIFIED."-AUSTIN, TEXAS, JAN. 8, 2001

"SHE IS A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION AT ONE POINT."
ANNOUNCING HIS NOMINATION OF LINDA CHAVEZ AS SECRETARY OF LABOR. AUSTIN, TEXAS, JAN. 2, 2001


"NATURAL GAS IS HEMISPHERIC. I LIKE TO CALL IT HEMISPHERIC IN NATURE BECAUSE IT IS A PRODUCT THAT WE CAN FIND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS."
AUSTIN, TEXAS, DEC. 20, 2000


"I AM MINDFUL OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. I ASSURED ALL FOUR OF THESE LEADERS THAT I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS THEY PASS THE LAWS AND I EXECUTE THEM." WASHINGTON, D.C., DEC. 18, 2000


"THE GREAT THING ABOUT AMERICA IS EVERYBODY SHOULD VOTE."
AUSTIN, TEXAS, DEC. 8, 2000


"I KNEW IT MIGHT PUT HIM IN AN AWKWARD POSITION THAT WE HAD A DISCUSSION BEFORE FINALITY HAS FINALLY HAPPENED IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE."
DESCRIBING A PHONE CALL TO SEN. JOHN BREAUX. CRAWFORD, TEXAS, DEC. 2, 2000


"THE LEGISLATURE'S JOB IS TO WRITE LAW. IT'S THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S JOB TO INTERPRET LAW."
AUSTIN, TEXAS, NOV. 22, 2000


"THEY MISUNDERESTIMATED ME."
BENTONVILLE, ARK., NOV. 6, 2000


"THEY WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE IT'S SOME KIND OF FEDERAL PROGRAM."
ST. CHARLES, MO., NOV. 2, 2000


"STATES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENACT REASONABLE LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS PARTICULARLY TO END THE INHUMANE PRACTICE OF ENDING A LIFE THAT OTHERWISE COULD LIVE."
-CLEVELAND, JUNE 29, 2000

"UNFAIRLY BUT TRUTHFULLY, OUR PARTY HAS BEEN TAGGED AS BEING AGAINST THINGS... ANTI-IMMIGRANT, FOR EXAMPLE. AND WE'RE NOT A PARTY OF ANTI-IMMIGRANTS. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. WE'RE A PARTY THAT WELCOMES PEOPLE."
-CAMPAIGNING IN CLEVELAND, JULY 1, 2000

" I DO NOT BELIEVE WE'VE PUT A GUILTY... I MEAN INNOCENT PERSON TO DEATH IN THE STATE OF TEXAS."
-ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, NPR, JUNE 16, 2000

"I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THE IDEAL WORLD, CHRIS. I'VE READ- I UNDERSTAND REALITY. IF YOU'RE ASKING ME AS THE PRESIDENT, WOULD I UNDERSTAND REALITY, I DO."
-ON ABORTION, HARDBALL, MSNBC; MAY 31, 2000

"THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE LIKE ME."
-ON THE COMING SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS; WILTON, CONN.; JUNE 9, 2000

BUSH: "FIRST OF ALL, CINCO DE MAYO IS NOT THE INDEPENDENCE DAY. THAT'S DIECISEIS DE SEPTIEMBRE, AND ..." MATTHEWS: "WHAT'S THAT IN ENGLISH?" BUSH: "FIFTEENTH OF SEPTEMBER." (DIECISEIS DE SEPTIEMBRE = SEPT. 16)
-HARDBALL, MSNBC, MAY 31, 2000

"ACTUALLY, I...THIS MAY SOUND A LITTLE WEST TEXAN TO YOU, BUT I LIKE IT. WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT...WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT MYSELF, AND WHEN HE'S TALKING ABOUT MYSELF, ALL OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT ME."
--HARDBALL, MSNBC, MAY 31, 2000


"HE HAS CERTAINLY EARNED A REPUTATION AS A FANTASTIC MAYOR, BECAUSE THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I MEAN, NEW YORK'S A SAFER PLACE FOR HIM TO BE."
-ON RUDY GIULIANI, THE EDGE WITH PAULA ZAHN, MAY 18, 2000

"THE FACT THAT HE RELIES ON FACTS...SAYS THINGS THAT ARE NOT FACTUAL...ARE GOING TO UNDERMINE HIS CAMPAIGN."
-NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 4, 2000

"I THINK WE AGREE, THE PAST IS OVER."
-ON HIS MEETING WITH JOHN MCCAIN, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, MAY 10, 2000

"IT'S CLEARLY A BUDGET. IT'S GOT A LOT OF NUMBERS IN IT."
-REUTERS, MAY 5, 2000

GOV. BUSH: " I TALKED TO MY LITTLE BROTHER, JEB...I HAVEN'T TOLD THIS TO MANY PEOPLE. BUT HE'S THE GOVERNOR OF...I SHOULDN'T CALL HIM MY LITTLE BROTHER...MY BROTHER, JEB, THE GREAT GOVERNOR OF TEXAS." JIM LEHRER: "FLORIDA." GOV. BUSH: "FLORIDA. THE STATE OF THE FLORIDA."
-THE NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER, APRIL 27, 2000

"I WAS RAISED IN THE WEST. THE WEST OF TEXAS. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO CALIFORNIA. IN MORE WAYS THAN WASHINGTON, D.C., IS CLOSE TO CALIFORNIA."
-IN LOS ANGELES AS QUOTED BY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, APRIL 8, 2000

"OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES MAY RETORT TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND NEGATIVE ADS."
-FUND-RAISING LETTER FROM GEORGE W. BUSH, QUOTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST, MARCH 24, 2000

"PEOPLE MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO SAY ALL THE TIME. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE; I DON'T READ WHAT'S HANDED TO ME. PEOPLE SAY, 'HERE, HERE'S YOUR SPEECH, OR HERE'S AN IDEA FOR A SPEECH.' THEY'RE CHANGED. TRUST ME."
-INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 15, 2000

"IT'S EVOLUTIONARY, GOING FROM GOVERNOR TO PRESIDENT, AND THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP, TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR YOURSELF ON THE BALLOT, AND I'LL BE ABLE TO DO SO NEXT FALL, I HOPE."
-INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, MARCH 8, 2000

"IT IS NOT REAGANESQUE TO SUPPORT A TAX PLAN THAT IS CLINTON IN NATURE."
-LOS ANGELES, FEB. 23, 2000

"I UNDERSTAND SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH. I WAS ONE."
-NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, FEB. 19, 2000

"THE SENATOR HAS GOT TO UNDERSTAND IF HE'S GOING TO HAVE...HE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. HE CAN'T TAKE THE HIGH HORSE AND THEN CLAIM THE LOW ROAD."
-TO REPORTERS IN FLORENCE, S.C., FEB. 17, 2000

"IF YOU'RE SICK AND TIRED OF THE POLITICS OF CYNICISM AND POLLS AND PRINCIPLES, COME AND JOIN THIS CAMPAIGN."
-HILTON HEAD, S.C., FEB. 16, 2000

"HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU DON'T MEASURE IF YOU HAVE A SYSTEM THAT SIMPLY SUCKLES KIDS THROUGH?"
-EXPLAINING THE NEED FOR EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN BEAUFORT, S.C., FEB. 16, 2000

"WE OUGHT TO MAKE THE PIE HIGHER."
-SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN DEBATE, FEB. 15, 2000

 

Wow Art, i am shocked! You actually believe everything you read. LOL. Dude, weren't you the one telling me some time ago when I use to post a lot of articles that I should not believe everything I read? LOL. Your killing me man. I would wage a bet that not more then 10% of those quotes are accurate but merely the compilation of some ultra-liberal posting on his website. ART, get a grip man. Have you heard of the saying that 90% of what you hear is not true and 80% of what you read is not true.

Why don't you start basing your hatred of Bush on facts and not rhetoric. You might see an uptick on your credibility on this site.

 

Campaign 2004: Six Things John Kerry Needs To Do To Win In November

March 08, 2004 [ Printer-friendly version ]


Dear Senator Kerry,

Congratulations on becoming the de facto nominee. Now the White House is gunning for you and party hacks are deafening you with advice. Take a deep breath and tune them out. Here is a simple six-point plan for becoming the 44th president of the United States.

One. You may share JFK's initials, but you need to campaign with RFK's passion. The night Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, you were on a ship coming home from Vietnam. And you have often talked about his legacy on the campaign trail, about politics as something more than "the art of the probable — tinkering around the edges without any greater vision." Ushering Bush out of the White House will take more than a critique, however masterful, of his failed policies — and more than a new-and-improved Medicare plan. It will take a bold moral vision of what America can be. As Bobby Kennedy often said, "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

Two. Don't pick a VP by looking at the map. Pick someone who can help you bring soul back to American politics and appeal not just to our self-interest but to our better instincts. In other words, do not pick Evan Bayh.

Three. Don't fall back on the tried-and-untrue swing voter strategy that has led to the prolonged identity crisis of the Democratic Party. Fifty percent of eligible voters did not vote in 2000. Speak to them — to the young, to the poor, to single women. Speak to those who have given up on our democracy, who are struggling without health care, without decent schools, without jobs. The dithering poltroons offering you focus group-tested advice on how to triangulate your way to victory won't like it. But you'll feel better about yourself, and you'll win.

Four. Don't run away from your voting record. Don't run away, as you did in the New York debate, from being called a liberal. Embrace it, and define it as the foundation of the great breakthroughs in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation. The 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. The New Deal, which put ordinary people back to work when the private sector couldn't. Social Security. Medicare. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Clean Air Act of 1970. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These are all milestones in our journey toward a just society. They all represent values — liberal values — held dear by most Americans. You can be the president who leads us to the next breakthrough after years of consolidation, stagnation and — under George Bush — regression.

Five. Remember: He who controls the language defines the political debate. Bush Republicans' control of certain magical words, starting with "responsibility," has been a key to their success. You need to take back "responsibility" from the grossly irresponsible GOP. It wants the nation to believe we can carry the burden of a worldwide war on terror and the Iraqi occupation while giving the top hats a multitrillion dollar tax cut and the drug companies a huge new prescription drug benefit without cost containment. We can't, of course, and you need to make sure Americans realize that before they vote in November.

Six. Strike a new bargain with the American people. Tell them, "Let's put an end to the tyranny of low expectations. You can expect a lot more of me, and I will ask a lot more of you." President Bush has used Sept. 11 to divide us — and as a handy visual for his new campaign ads. Imagine how different our country would be if he had used it instead to call on the American people not to go shopping but to commit themselves to a large, collective purpose. Believe in us enough to ask us to confront both the horrors wrought by terrorists and the horrors wrought by random violence in our inner cities, and by woefully inadequate health care, education and housing. Believe in us enough to ask us to share in the sacrifices necessary to build a country of real opportunity for all and a sturdy social safety net. The values and spirit that emerged on Sept. 11 — generosity, selflessness, courage — are still very much part of who we are. After years of being pandered to and lied to, we are longing for a leader who will speak straight to us and challenge us to live up to those intangible qualities that make our nation great.

You can be that leader, but only if you ignore all those who tell you that's not the way you win elections. Indeed, that's the only way you'll win this one.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=700

 

Posted on Thu, Mar. 11, 2004

For a clean presidential mind, change it often

By Molly Ivins

Creators Syndicate


Living proof that the Democrats haven't gotten any smarter since the last time they ran a candidate for president.

Much huffing (and a huffy Democrat is a terrifying sight) over the fact that George W. Bush used images of 9-11 and of the firefighters at ground zero to tout his candidacy in his first campaign ad. How crass, said the D's.

But the problem is not that the ad is in bad taste -- the problem is that Bush flimflammed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway.

For those of you who have forgotten what happened: Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Bush promised a $3.5 billion aid package to provide equipment and training in dealing with such attacks to local police and fire departments.

For more than 18 months, no money appeared, and when it finally did, it was nowhere near the promised levels. (Hey, he had to cut those taxes on the richest 1 percent of Americans.)

Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked ground zero were specifically swindled.

They were promised $90 million to monitor the long-term health effects of breathing in all that ash for months while they cleaned up. The money was to have been included in the overall post-9-11 aid package for New York City, but it got shifted to another bill that Bush rejected the following August. About half the workers screened before the money ran out suffered from respiratory problems.

Republicans in Congress twice voted down first-responder money. New York's congressional delegation, led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, put up a huge battle before the long-promised $90 million was finally pried out of a reluctant Congress and White House, but the responder money is still not fully funded to this day.

You can see that this is already shaping up as a campaign where the media observe John Kerry under a microscope and neglect to point out the obvious facts about Bush's record. Kerry, say the Republicans solemnly, is given to flip-flopping. Kerry is?

Let's just start counting off the top of our heads:

George W. Bush was opposed to a commission to investigate how and why 9-11 occurred, but then he changed his mind and backed it.

He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it.

He now brags, "I went to the U.N. [before invading Iraq]"? Who recalls why he changed his mind about doing that? He originally said he not only did not need to consult the United Nations -- he did not even have to consult the U.S. Congress.

Anyone remember how Bush, the corporate ethicist of Harken Energy, opposed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill? Sarbanes-Oxley was a mildly reformist piece of legislation deemed slightly necessary in the wake of the staggering accounting scandals that caused the collapse of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom.

There seemed to be a new record bankruptcy every week, but our president didn't think we needed any new laws to prevent such things -- my, no. When did he change his mind and decide to sign it? After it passed the House with one vote against it.

Remember when we weren't going to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't going to negotiate with North Korea again, but we would "talk" to North Korea, but only in multilateral "talking," until Bush changed his mind yet again and now we're in multilateral negotiations.

Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell it to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary that we call on it not just for Iraq but for Haiti and other trouble spots as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq -- our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when nation-building was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry -- he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he?

 

Bush Wants Kerry to Identify Supporters
2 hours, 31 minutes ago

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush challenged Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday to identify who he is talking about when he claims that some foreign leaders privately support him over Bush.


"If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands.


(Don't you think if in the course of your presidency you make a claim of WMD in Iraq, that you should have backed that up with facts?)

 

This guy is such a joke. Every single claim that Bush made was backed by the US Intelligence Estimate document, as well as every single intelligence agency in the world, as well as the UN, which unanimously voted for a resolution that was premised on the assumption that Iraq possessed unaccounted for WMDs. Even ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy operated under the assumption that Iraq possessed WMDs.

Sad that Rogue likes to throw out these flat out lies without first checking the historical record. Even if it turns out that WMDs are not found, it doesn't change the fact that practically EVERYONE believed that Iraq possessed them at the time. It wasn't because Bush lied (as Rogue has led himself to believe), but that Hussein misled and dodged the issue for so long.

Rogue seems to have been blessed with 20/20 hindsight. He probably knew that the Soviet Union would've collapsed under its own weight as well.

 

I agree Kerry has to say it since for Bush everybody knows: Saudi Arabia through Karlyle Group.

I wonder when people will eventually opens their eyes that they have the choice between crook n°1 and crook n°2.

 

Shrub's whole damned presidency is one big flip-flop. His 2000 campaign was all disinformation. Remember the "green republican"? Remember 'compassionate conservative'? Bush wouldn't know compassion if it came up and bit him on the ass.

m

 

Posted on Thu, Mar. 18, 2004

Pass me some of that aspirin, please

By Molly Ivins

Creators Syndicate


AUSTIN - How much fun can one administration have? More dead GIs. New record trade deficit. Stock market plunges. Ally in Spain goes down to defeat. The new Spanish prime minister says the occupation in Iraq is a "continuing disaster," and he's pulling his troops out.

Still no jobs. And then the guy who was supposed to be the new jobs czar turns out to have laid off 75 of his own workers in 2002 and then built a $3 million factory in China to employ 180 Chinese that same year.

Whoever has the aspirin concession at the White House must be making a fortune.

The unfortunate matter of the would-be jobs czar came at a particularly awkward moment. More than six months ago, President Bush promised to appoint a "manufacturing czar" at the Commerce Department. As the Center for American Progress points out, since then we've lost another 250,000 manufacturing jobs.

Bush was on his way to Ohio last week, where the economy has just been hemorrhaging jobs, to "focus on jobs." He actually claimed, "We're creating jobs -- good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen."

The guy is living on some parallel planet. Bush chose Anthony Raimondo, CEO of a manufacturing company in Nebraska, to be the jobs czar, which would have worked out better if Raimondo hadn't just outsourced 180 jobs to China. The Web site the Daily Misleader found a truly impressive convergence between Bush's top campaign contributors and the corporations that have outsourced the most jobs abroad.

Here's the catch. Even if the globalizers are right, and outsourcing every manufacturing job in America is a terrific idea, what does it take to get the "good, high-paying jobs" that Bush claims they're creating?

In theory, the new jobs will be "brain jobs" in biotechnology and other forms of advanced applied science, plus the creative fields, and for that you need scientists, entrepreneurs, creative people and intellectuals. Basically, everybody Bush doesn't like.

He's shown so much favoritism to the big corporations that I don't see how he can claim to like even entrepreneurs.

He's consistently replaced scientists on all kinds of government advisory boards with religious activists. He ignores scientific reports indicating that his various policies either don't work or are actually harmful. This White House has changed and rewritten reports made by government scientists, particularly in the area of the environment. Bush kissed off biotechnology with the stem cell research decision.

Apparently he hates Hollywood. We know he doesn't like intellectuals, and he's not in favor of green technology because he continues to subsidize extractive and polluting industries with tax breaks. How do they ever expect this thing to work?

They apparently think they can just lie about it. Last month, Bush released a personally signed report claiming that his economic plan would create 2.6 million jobs. Then he had to "distance himself," as they say in Washington, from that absurdity. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao appeared before Congress last week to claim that Bush never actually signed the report.

Their contempt for government means they just don't govern well. What can you say about an administration that threatens to fire people if they tell the truth to Congress?

The latest example of this charming policy is the case of Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Knight Ridder News Service reported in an exclusive that Foster's boss at the time, Thomas Scully, wrote "a direct order not to respond to certain requests and instead to provide the responses to him and warned about the consequences of insubordination."

What Scully was sitting on was the rather pertinent information that Foster's cost estimates on that stinking prescription drug bill were $100 billion higher than Congress was willing to go. You may recall that the prescription drug bill passed the House on a 220-215 vote after the R's held the vote open for three hours.

Many R's were unhappy with the bill and vowed not to vote for it if it cost more than $400 billion in the first 10 years. Foster had a whole series of estimates that put the bill at more than $500 billion. In January, the White House said the cost would be $534 billion.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said: "Tom Scully told my staff that Rick Foster would be 'fired so fast his head would spin' if he released this information to us." Last summer, Scully told The Associated Press: "They don't have the right on the Hill to call up my actuary and demand things. These people work for the executive branch, period."

Scully said he would release the analysis "if I feel like it." Uh, actually, "Mr. Scully's people" work for the taxpayers of this country, and so does he, and we're represented in Washington by the Congress.

We are also of the opinion that Congress writes better legislation when it has some idea -- within a hundred billion or so -- what the blasted law will cost us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------