A few articles have hit recently in different papers across the country all discussing the idea that New Jersey is now a swing state and that President Bush has a shot here. This is something I find to be complete crap. To be fair, there have been a few polls indicating a tightening race in this bluest of blue states. But most of the polls showing gains for Bush came close on the heels of the GOP convention in nearby New York City and Kerry has since regained a comfortable lead.
Nearly every writer brings up the fact that New Jersey lost seven hundred people on 9/11, implying that this would make us more likely to vote for a Republican than in years past. But this completely ignores the crucial fact that in November of 2001, just two months after 9/11, a progressive Democrat, Jim McGreevey, beat a conservative Republican, Bret Schundler, in the state's gubernatorial election.
But the media still seems to be buying into the image of Bush as the fearless war President.
Lynn Griffin, 32, a Republican who was waiting for a bus late last week, said: "I work with people who worked in the trade center, and they are afraid to vote for Kerry."
"I had a neighbor who lost her husband in the attacks," she said. "It was so scary. I've got kids. I don't want another attack." She purses her lips and makes her confession: "Look, I'm voting for Bush. He's very strong, and there's no 'maybe' in his voice."
So the first expert opinion came from a Republican and the second came from a woman who thinks that Kerry's said he'll maybe fight terrorists. I know I'm sold!
I can honestly say that I do not know a single person in New Jersey who is voting for George W. Bush because he's supposedly stronger on terrorism than Kerry. In fact, that's kind of a hard pill to swallow when the Bush administration has done virtually nothing either to protect New Jersey's immense seaport or to force chemical plants -- one of the state's largest industries -- to tighten their security.
Everyone I know in Jersey who's voting for Bush is doing so simply to lock in their tax cuts. They might be selling the journalists some pablum about terrorism fears, but it's just not true. Sure, we're scared of terrorists. We all know at least one person who died on 9/11. But that happened on Bush's watch. He didn't protect us then and I have no reason to believe he'll be able to protect us in the future. And I'd suspect, guessing by the number of Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers I'm seeing out on the road every day, I'm not alone in that belief.
posted by Scott |
10/15/2004 |
|
Joe Gandelman of the blog The Moderate Voice, perhaps in part due to his experience at the informational meat grinder known as the AP, has the story on what every corner of the blogosphere had to say about last night's debate. And I'm not just saying that because he paid me a swell compliment in the post.
Dig this list: Glenn Reynolds, Ezra Klein, Kos, James Joyner, Steve Soto, Atrios, Begala, Wizbang, Sully, Digby... that's barely even half of it. He of course adds his own two cents, which are well worth reading on their own.
This one's a must read if you want to know the CW on the debate.
posted by Scott |
10/15/2004 |
| Thursday, October 14, 2004
During last night's debate, I took special note of Bush's comment on who is to blame for the rising costs of healthcare and the increasing number of uninsured Americans.
"Gosh, I sure hope it's not the administration."
Bush's snicker is ugly as hell.
Apparently I wasn't alone in thinking that. The DNC has a new web ad out with the footage from the debate. And upon further review, I stand by my initial reaction. Bush's snicker is indeed ugly as hell.
Atrios picked this up from the debate last night. Right out of Bush's mouth.
I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a He just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.
As much as this reads like a scare tactic, Atrios points out that the fundamental facts in this soundbite aren't worth much as an argument against government sponsored healthcare. Incidentally, what Kerry is proposing isn't anything close to government sponsored healthcare anyway.
The Congressional Budget Office found that in 2002, healthcare costs in America averaged out to $5,450 per person. But it would cost $7,700 to provide healthcare for every family in America. Doing some quick math based on 71 million families living in America and an American population of 293 million, you'd find that the average American family has 4.13 people. So...
Current costs of healthcare: $1,597,000,261,950
Cost of healthcare under one single-payer plan: $546,700,000,000
Would single-payer truly save the American people one trillion dollars in healthcare costs? I sincerely doubt it. But that's certainly the argument Bush seemed to be making the other night.
posted by Scott |
10/14/2004 |
|
Post Debate Wrap
First of all, Kerry cleaned Bush's clock. Three for three. As was pointed out on NPR this morning, George W. Bush is the first Presidential candidate to have 'lost' -- according to the polls -- all of his debates since... well... his dad. Some people don't take standardized tests well. Apparently, the Bush family doesn't debate all that well. Sorry, Jeb.
Second of all, the hub bub about Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney's sexual preference is insane. Only a homophobe would think it's an insult to point out that someone is gay. I do believe it was my Republican parents who taught me that at a young age. (I could be wrong, but that seems pretty consistent to me.) But don't take my word for it. Here's Andrew Sullivan -- also gay, for those living on Mars -- on the topic:
I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one.
Getting back to the question of 'who won', don't take my word for it. Here are the polls, courtesy the Kerry blog:
Kerry 4-0 In Snap Polls last night
CBS: KERRY WINS UNDECIDEDS 39-25 *In a poll of undecided voters, Kerry won 39% - 25
*Before the debate, 29% said he had clear positions on the issues, after, that number doubled to 60%.
ABC: KERRY WINS REPUBLICAN HEAVY POLL Kerry won 42%-41%, in a poll with 8% more Republicans than Democrats (38-40), Kerry was still seen as the winner: 42-41. Independent voters gave the win to Kerry: 42-35 [abcnews.com]
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: KERRY WINS Who did a better job: Kerry 52 - Bush 39. Among independents, Kerry won even bigger: 54-34.
DEMOCRACY CORPS: KERRY WINS 41-36 Kerry won 41-36 among debate watchers.
Among independents, Kerry won by 6 points, and by nine in battleground states.
Undecideds broke for Kerry, saying he won by eight points. [democracycorps.com]
As I predicted during the live blogging, Bush's exaggerated "exaggeration" comment came back to haunt him in a big way. Bush has said repeatedly that he wasn't worried about bin Laden, a number of times on video. So for him to claim that Kerry made that up is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous for him to call it an exaggeration as 1) it's not at all, and 2) his campaign has a much bigger problem with exaggeration than Kerry does -- something that has become part of the conventional wisdom this campaign season.
Unlike many of the things Bush has said, Kerry didn't take Bush's comments out of context or manipulate their meaning. He presented them as-is. I would make the argument that Bush actually has a point in saying that we shouldn't be worried about bin Laden. It's really al Qaeda's human infrastructure that should be our target -- not the one guy at the top. That's not say that we shouldn't kill the bastard, but if we don't get him, it's not necessarily the end of the world.
On style, Bush once again looked immature and petulant. He clearly did a better job hiding it this time around, but he still couldn't quite get there. Kerry looked cool and Presidential. There's absolutely no denying that. I wish debates were more about substance, but the image issue cannot be avoided. And in this case, I'm certainly not complaining.
But in this case, Kerry didn't just win on style. He also won on substance. He put out his ideas and the President tried his best to mangle them. Bush was constantly playing defense and not even doing it well. For example, on healthcare, here's what former Senator and now Disney Chairman George Mitchell had to say on PBS:
When President Bush gets sick, he goes to a government doctor, he's treated at a government hospital, he's cared for a by a government nurse, so is every Republican Senator and every Republican Congressman. If government care is so bad for the rest of the American people, why is it that the President gets government care. I don't favor a government program but the sheer effrontery of receiving government care from government employees and saying its bad for the American people, it, it's offensive.
And that's it, right there in a nutshell. The debate tactic of the GOP in recent years has been 'Lie, Smear, Repeat'. This time, though, the American people aren't buying it.
Go, Kerry, Go!
posted by Scott |
10/14/2004 |
| Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Blogging The Debate - Part III
Here we are sports fans. Actually, you can't possibly be sports fans. If you were, you'd be where I was until just a few minutes ago and hopefully will be after this thing is over -- watching baseball.
The way I see it, this is actually the least important debate. Kerry won number one handily. Number two was a bit of a draw, but probably a win for Kerry when all was said and done. Does Kerry need to win this one? No. But he will anyway.
Here it goes...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh yeah, and commenting is now turned on, so have at it. I only ask that you be cool to your fellow DemWatchers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nothing of substance has even been said and Bush is already irritated. I love this guy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. So much for this being a domestic policy debate.
2. Bush's mic sounds messed up and feedbacky. Not really flattering, but certainly not his fault.
3. Going back to 1, is it just me or have we heard all of this before?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Exaggerations"
Did Bush just forget he wasn't still running against Gore? What was that about?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What the hell is Bush talking about? The lack of flu vaccine is the fault of trial lawyers?
Yeah. And puppies die because Republicans are mean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"... importing ceiling fans from China"
Kerry comes up with the most random examples for things. He's absolutely right of course, but still. That sounded so damn funny.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kerry's damn good on domestic policy. The anecdote about telling union workers that he will not and cannot stop all outsourcing is a good one. Straight talk in the land of straight talkers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bush isn't losing because he's really losing. He's losing because he sounds like a over-caffeinated spazz. Again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Gosh, I sure hope it's not the administration."
Bush's snicker is ugly as hell. And how did he just manage to miss a softball, no, teeball question asking if lawyers were responsible for the high cost of medical care?
He finally picked it up, but he really should have nailed that one. He also mentioned something about "the defensive costs of health care" and then threw out some hard numbers. The only problem with that is that there is absolutely no mechanism to measure those costs, so they're completely made up.
Insane.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is going to destroy Bush in the post-debate wrap...
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.... I truly am not that concerned about him.
Thanks, Dubya. We needed that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together."
How the hell does Bush think he's going to do that after he's burned all of his bridges in this party and even quite a few in his own?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Whoa! Total softball to Kerry on extended deployments for National Guard. He's doing well with it, but the important point is that it comes up.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Is Bush playing some sort of drinking game on the sly tonight? I'm not talking about alcohol, but it seems that he's drinking an awful lot of water tonight.
Anyone notice any pattern?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What the hell is with the religion question? Both of these answers are so damn Oprah.
At least Kerry seems to be bringing it back to policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kerry just hit it out of the park on bringing the two parties together. Can he accomplish it? I don't know. What I do know is that the other guy certainly hasn't done it.
Bush reclaiming John McCain is the funniest thing I've seen in all of these debates. 'Bu.. bu.. John McCain is my friend!!!'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bush's joke about scowling went much better this time than it did last time. It still highlights the fact that he scowls, though.
Why does Bush look mad at Kerry for making the joke about Teresa's money? So weird...
Kerry did a fantastic job taking the high road in complimenting Bush and his family. It means nothing about his skills or accomplishments as President, but it really does show him to be a warm, open guy in contrast to the unrelenting attacks from Bush.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The greatest possiblities of our country -- our dreams, our hopes -- are out there waiting for us to grab on to them."
I think I got it. My transcription skills are not the greatest. Kerry inspires me. Bush never has. It just comes down to that.
Bush is on his closing now. This is clearly his 'baby, please don't leave me' speech talking about all we've been through together in the last three and a half years. I, of course, don't think it's going to sell.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm watching MSNBC right now, as I have after each of these debates. It seems to be a draw from their end. And that clearly means that Kerry won.
I know I'm psyched.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Revisiting MSNBC right now, Bill Frist is freaking out right now defending the President. He keeps returning to the theme of Kerry looking and sounding great, but it not meaning anything. Don't believe you're lying eyes, voters.
posted by Scott |
10/13/2004 |
|
Now With Commenting!
By (somewhat) popular demand, I've enabled commenting here at DemWatch just in time for tonight's debate. I will once again be live blogging the debate tonight, testing the limits of the Google Empire along with all of the other political Blogger users out there. So now my running commentary can be supplemented by your running commentary, if you so choose. I only ask that you're respectful of both my readers and me. I've managed to maintain a very civil dialogue with even my most hardcore Republican readers and I'd really like to keep it that way across the board.
So feel free to comment away...
posted by Scott |
10/13/2004 |
|
So much for the argument from Team W that Kerry could not do a better job bringing more allies to the table when it comes to fixing Bush's Iraq mess.
Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government's resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: "At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future]."
Mr Struck also welcomed Mr Kerry's proposal that he would convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month's election.
Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."
It's incredibly difficult for John Kerry to openly claim that Europeans would be more willing to help a him than they would George W. Bush. Everyone with any knowledge of diplomacy and foreign policy seems to believe that this is, in fact, the case. However, turning "the French and the Germans like me better" into a positive in much of the United States is a tough sell. And besides that, the Europeans wouldn't want to openly endorse Kerry at the risk of burning their bridges with the current President.
So far, Bush and Cheney have derided Kerry's mention of the issue, saying that the French and the Germans have already said they would not commit any troops to Iraq. While that's true, our European allies would likely reevaluate the situation with Kerry at the helm. Minister Struck's vague and legalistic comments are a wink and a nod, acknowledging this reality.
I'd love for Bush to bring the allies issue up in tonight's debate. Struck and the Germans have given Kerry all of the ammo he needs to hit that one right out of the park.
posted by Scott |
10/13/2004 |
|
Quite honestly, this scares the ever-living daylights out of me.
Subject: FW: Terrorist Attack on US Soil is Imminent Importance: High
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
At the meeting of the Southern District of the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC) that was held yesterday in Houston, US Attorney Michael Shelby informed the group that a terrorist attack of 09/11/01 proportions was going to be carried out on US soil within the next 6 weeks.
Mr. Shelby stated that on 09/13/04, US Attorney General John Ashcroft had a conference call with all 93 US Attorneys, an event which is extremely rare. The US Attorneys were informed that without a doubt an attack was going to be perpetrated in the US within the next 6 weeks, prior to the elections. Mr. Shelby urgently requested that all law enforcement be aware of any situation that may be out of the ordinary and report the activity immediately. Mr. Shelby also requested that we get the word out to patrol officers and detectives to talk to their informants and report anything odd or remotely suspicious. Mr. Shelby ended this warning by saying that unless we get a bit of "luck" and the attack can be detected and prevented, that another attack of 9/11 scale will be carried out.
Please disseminate to all of your law enforcement contacts ASAP.
New Mexico Investigative Support Center
Direct Line: 505-541-7000
Fax: 505-541-7006
John E. Vinson, Director
This is, of course, something we've heard a lot about in recent months. Al Qaeda wants to hit us inside our borders before the election. That's less than a month now, so all of us simple citizens can do is hope for the best and avoid air travel and major city centers like the plague. And some of us can't even do that much.
As I've written before, the theory that al Qaeda wants to hit the United States to sway the election to Kerry is utterly stupid. If we get hit again, the force of the response won't differ no matter who the President is. And besides, even if Kerry wins, Bush will still be the President for two more months. The folks who run al Qaeda may be genocidal maniacs, but they aren't stupid. They know full well that a terrorist attack on American soil is more likely to cause the American electorate to rally around the President -- not jump into the arms of someone new. If al Qaeda does attack us before the election, it's not to shift the support to one candidate or the other -- it's just to muck up the process and flex their muscles.
I might be dismissing this warning as the dirtiest of political tricks if it were not for the actions of Democratic Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota. Dayton has announced that he will be closing his Washington, D.C. office until after the November election in response to a "top-secret intelligence report on our national security" that has been distributed to members of Congress two weeks ago. Mark Dayton is certainly not working to get the President re-elected, so I view his actions as a stamp of authenticity on the rumors of impending terrorist attack.
Dayton has called for additional, full-Senate meetings with GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to discuss the specific threats, but has been repeatedly declined. It would be nice if, in the interest of public safety, the government could divulge as much information as they possibly can about specific dates and targets to put people on alert.
Looking back at 9/11, there were certain things that could have been done to lessen the impact of that attack if only first responders and the American people in general had a better idea of what was going on. At this point, putting specific information out there may cause some serious panic and may not be 100% effective in stopping an attack. But if it means a reduced loss of life on American soil, I'd have to say that it's worth it.
posted by Scott |
10/13/2004 |
| Tuesday, October 12, 2004
What does it say to a political party when it is in their interest that fewer people vote? Concentrating power in the hands of a few in the form of wealth is one thing -- no matter how stupid it is, trickle-down economics still exists as an economic theory. However, concentrating political power in the hands of a few is completely indefensible. At best, it's plutocratic. At the worst, it's totalitarianism.
In Las Vegas, CBS television affiliate KLAS has uncovered a widespread, GOP-backed scheme to fool Democrats into thinking they are registered to vote when, in fact, they are not. Voters Outreach of America, which also goes by the name 'America Votes' and is "largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee", hired about 300 workers in the Las Vegas area to collect voter registrations outside shopping malls, grocery stores, and government buildings. Once those registrations were taken back to the company's offices, the registration forms marked 'Democrat' were pulled from the rest and either torn up or shredded.
A few former employees of the company managed to salvage some evidence of shredded Democratic registrations and passed them along to KLAS-TV. When the TV station looked into the matter, it turned out that none of the 'registered' voters were actually registered with the state. This seems to be a pattern for Voters Outreach, as they pulled the same stunt in Reno and have since left Las Vegas for Oregon.
As with the Sinclair Broadcasting issue, it's my personal concern that something is done to stop this kind of anti-democratic nonsense before the election is actually held. But with so little time left in the campaign season, it seems that the full truth will not be disclosed on this and many other matters until well after the election is held.
Should John Kerry win, then it's not so much of a problem. He will have tremendous mandate no matter what the final vote tally because he will have faced a massive voter disenfranchisement and fraud operation and still won anyway.
But if George W. Bush somehow manages to get 're-elected' next month, there will be a dark cloud over his administration the likes of which have not been seen since the darkest days of Watergate. And believe me -- as much as I like watching Bush squirm, I'd much rather forgo the squirming in exchange for a President Kerry.
posted by Scott |
10/12/2004 |
|
Another Sinclair Broadcasting Scandal
I admit it. I've been lax of late. The news -- mostly controversial stuff -- hasn't seemed to fit DemWatch and I've been absurdly busy. In addition to running this site, which seems to be going on mostly deep into the night these days, I also work a pretty stressful day job. That job is in flux right now, so if anyone wants to hire this diligent young blogger, drop me a line. Or even if you want to just give me a few thousand bucks, that would work too.
So anyway, it seems that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group story has become real news. I find this a little hard to believe since the folks who run Sinclair are utter crackpots, but I'm glad at least that it's not getting swept under the rug.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, you can check out the story at The New York Times. Essentially, the pro-GOP Sinclair, which owns and operates over 60 local television stations around the country, will be airing an anti-Kerry documentary in the final ten days of the Presidential campaign in key swing states, pre-empting regular primetime programming to do so. Oh yeah, and they're running it commercial free. They're claiming they can do this since the documentary is legitimate news. But it's not. It's really just vicious propaganda of the worst Soviet ilk.
Honestly, Atrios, Kos, and Josh Marshall have done a hell of a job covering this. I'd strongly suggest checking out what they all have to say. But most importantly, Stop Sinclair
And in the meantime, someone give me a damn job...
posted by Scott |
10/12/2004 |
| Monday, October 11, 2004
Newspaper Endorsements For Kerry Piling Up
So far this month, The Arizona Daily Star, The Detroit Free Press, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Portland Press Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Oregonian have all endorsed John Kerry for President.
I'm not suggesting that you should base your vote on what a bunch of newspaper editors say. But they do make a pretty credible case. Here's a sampling of what they've written:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - 10/10/04
Based on his record, President George W. Bush has not earned re-election. He has mishandled the war on terrorism, shut his eyes to disagreeable facts, left the next generation in hock and presided over a sharp loss in jobs, health insurance and prosperity for millions of Americans.
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., understands that Mr. Bush took a wrong turn by transforming the war on terrorism into an invasion of Iraq. He understands the importance of working with our traditional allies and the world community to fight terrorism. And he wants to step up efforts to address real nuclear threats by disposing of nuclear materials in Russia and dealing directly with North Korea and Iran.
...
America needs a leader who sees the world as it is, who knows how to rebuild international alliances, who focuses on threats to homeland security, who runs the government for the benefit of all Americans. By virtue of his knowledge of world affairs, his life story of national service and his moderate values, John Kerry is that leader.
Philadelphia Inquirer - 10/10/04
Here is what Kerry thinks, and what his record as a U.S. senator, lieutenant governor and prosecutor underscores:
John Kerry thinks government should pursue solutions to problems that haunt American lives, but must pay for each initiative as it goes - not stick the nation's children with the tab. Robert Rubin, the superb Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, praises Kerry as a senator who stood tall on the tough votes that tamed deficits.
He thinks work is better than welfare; he voted for welfare reform.
He thinks it's unacceptable that 45 million Americans lack health coverage; he has a smart plan to shrink that number dramatically.
He wants science to do all it can to speed cures for illnesses.
He knows that protection of America's air, land and water can't be left to the whims of corporations.
He doesn't just shrug when he sees American children slipping into poverty, or more paychecks losing buying power.
If those aren't mainstream American values, then God help America. But of course these are American values.
...
John Kerry isn't perfect. He has things to learn. One thing Americans should have learned by now, though, is that the incumbent lacks the realism, judgment and ability to adjust to events that the United States needs in its commander in chief. In this perilous moment, the safer choice, the wiser choice, is John F. Kerry.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 10/9/04
And as always when a president is running for re-election, the main issue will be the record of the incumbent, President George W. Bush, and what it suggests about his leadership in a potential second term. Unfortunately, that record is grounds for grave concern.
That concern goes beyond mere differences about policy to questions about basic competence. Too often, Bush has seemed to disdain rational analysis of a situation in favor of a rigid, unbending ideology that recognizes no shading of gray. The world that Bush describes, and the world as it exists, are often two different places.
...
It's time to give competence a chance.
Arizona Daily Star - 10/3/04
In less than four years, President Bush, the avowed conservative, turned a record surplus into a record deficit, now estimated at $422 billion. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent and then improved a bit, but this summer, 5.4 percent of the work force was still unemployed.
The peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration evolved, under President Bush, to a falsely justified war and an economy that declined sharply and is barely staggering back to solvency - though even that faltering solvency is seriously jeopardized by impractical tax cuts for which our children will pay dearly.
Economist Milton Friedman has observed, with considerable wisdom, "A tax cut that adds to the deficit today is just a tax hike on future taxpayers."
It is clear that a change is needed. We believe the policies and management style that Kerry represents offer more hope than the current administration's stubborn allegiance to isolationist rhetoric, the unjustified use of military force and economic policies that provide instant gratification to some and long-term danger to the nation as a whole.
...
President Bush had four years to prove himself and did poorly. It is time to elect a president with a broader understanding of international affairs and a greater concern for the welfare of those living on slender incomes. Elect John Kerry.
Damning, but ultimately accurate criticism from the people who most closely follow the White House and the impact of national politics on local life around the country. Expect more and more of these in the days and weeks ahead from papers all across the country.
posted by Scott |
10/11/2004 |
|
