bamma for "every dollar" Ms Heinz-Kerry has donated to Peaceful Tomorrows, lets count how many dollars 2002 Top Contributors: Republican Party Texans for John Cornyn $3,100,000 Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $2,944,287 Philip Morris $2,387,480 Freddie Mac $2,335,615 Microsoft Corp $1,942,751 American Financial Group $1,819,108 AT&T $1,763,936 Governor Bush Cmte $1,700,000 Sunland Park Racetrack & Casino $1,305,000 Verizon Communications $1,218,906 New Republican Majority Fund $1,153,990 American International Group $1,096,449 Citigroup Inc $1,095,742 Cintas Corp $1,072,300 Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,072,217 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,069,746 Pfizer Inc $1,050,211 Archer Daniels Midland $1,041,250 Pharmacia Corp $1,037,188 Bill Thomas Campaign Cmte $1,005,000 http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=RPC&cycle=2002
It's not slander!?! How do you know it's the truth!?! You people!?! What does that mean!?! What are you even talking about!?! Are you Crazy!?! Who is Chris and what are Sakes!?! Peaceful tomorrows what is that - a bunch of sissy hippies!?! Why am I yelling!!?!! YEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Bush to attend memorial for 9/11 victims - - - - - - - - - - - - By Scott Lindlaw March 11, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush isn't backing down. His response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is a centerpiece of his campaign for re-election and he underscores the point Thursday with a visit to a new victims' memorial before headlining a campaign fund-raiser. Bush used images from the World Trade Center's smoldering wreckage in his first re-election TV commercials last week, and refused to retreat when critics called them crass exploitation of those killed in the attacks. Bush was to be among the first digging shovels of dirt at the groundbreaking for a new Sept. 11 memorial in East Meadow, N.Y., a Manhattan suburb on Long Island. The quarrel over the ads was shadowing Bush, as at least two groups announced plans to protest his visit. "No one's been held accountable for anything about 9/11," said Bill Doyle, who lost his 25-year-old son, Joseph, at the World Trade Center. Doyle, who also criticized the image in Bush's campaign commercial of the flag-draped remains of a victim being carried from ground zero, said he intends to be at the demonstration. "I have a problem with exploiting death for political gain," he said. "I'd have the same problem if Democrats used images of body bags coming back from Iraq in one of their ads." The $750,000 memorial will feature two semitransparent aluminum towers, representing the World Trade Center, rising 30 feet from a reflecting pool. It will also have a wall with the names of 281 victims who lived in or had ties to Nassau County, N.Y., and two pieces of steel from the trade center's wreckage. It is expected to be completed in time for September's third anniversary of the attacks. Besides Bush, New York Gov. George Pataki, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., were also attending the commemoration. Both Pataki and Giuliani have defended Bush's use of Sept. 11 in the campaign. Afterward, the group of politicians were making the five-minute trip to Bush's fund-raiser. Bush has raised more than $160 million for his re-election and shows no sign of slowing down as he approaches his stated goal of $170 million. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, were on separate money-raising trips as well. Bush was starting the day by tending to his conservative base with satellite remarks to the National Association of Evangelicals Convention in Colorado. The economy is another pillar of Bush's re-election bid and he was carrying his message of tax cuts and trade to Long Island as well. He takes a 10-minute tour of USA Industries, which makes automobile parts in Bay Shore, N.Y., and hosts a "conversation on the economy," where managers and workers typically extol the benefits of his economic agenda. Earlier this week, Bush gave a firm defense of his use of Sept. 11 in his campaign. "It was a major moment in our nation's history," Bush told KTRK-TV in Houston. "It was a time when the enemy declared war on us. And as I tell people, war's what they got with George W. Bush as the president." Bush added: "I'll honor those who died. I'll honor those who sacrificed to save lives. But I'm not going to forget. ... I remember people looking at me, saying, 'Don't you ever let us down, Mr. President. Do what it takes to secure America,' and that's exactly what I intend to do."
Molly... __________________ Bush record replete with rewritten histories and chucked promises AUSTIN, Texas -- 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. Exploiting a national tragedy for political purposes -- oh, how tacky. Dammit, the problem is not that the ad is in bad taste, the problem is that Bush screwed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway -- and that, my friends, is gall. Bait, switch and then claim credit anyway. For those of you who have forgotten what happened (apparently including the entire Bush campaign) shortly after the 9-11 attacks, President 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 over 18 months, no money appeared, and when money finally did appear, it was nowhere near the promised levels (hey, he had to cut those taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans). Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked Ground Zero were specifically screwed. 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 good day. Despite disingenuous statements put out by the White House ("There's more assistance going to state and local officials than ever before"), Bush is still behind on his initial commitment. You do not have to be an ace Washington reporter to figure this out. Ask your local fire department. You can see that this is already shaping up as a campaign where the media observe Kerry under a microscope (has he switched to earth-tones yet?) 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. (Political pressure.) He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) 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 said 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 of Representatives with one vote against it. Remember when we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't gong 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 them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but 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?
Thanks, rimrocker. Molly Ivins, a Texas treasure. No wonder the firefighters largely support Kerry... For those of you who have forgotten what happened (apparently including the entire Bush campaign) shortly after the 9-11 attacks, President 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 over 18 months, no money appeared, and when money finally did appear, it was nowhere near the promised levels (hey, he had to cut those taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans). Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked Ground Zero were specifically screwed. 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 good day. So ironic that our Republican friends are bellowing about Kerry flip-flopping on positions and issues, when Bush has taken it to another level altogether. He flip-flops like a fresh-caught fish dropped on a dock... bouncing, mouth open and closing spasmodically, scales flying all over the place, losing it's color... Bush, a pathetic, flip-flopping fish out of water. With all his fishy friends standing to one side, muttering advice, "Hey! Flop some that way... no, no... over here!" "No, you twit. Your bouncing the wrong way. Bounce this way!" Poor George. He doesn't know whether to flip or to flop. I think he's going to flip-out and flop come November.
"War president" Bush more focused on September 11 than Iraq WASHINGTON (AFP) - One year after the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush eagerly uses the September 11 attacks for his reelection bid while treating the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein as more of a liability. The mounting death toll among US troops in Iraq and the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction at the core of the case for war have turned military victory into political headache ahead of the November 2 vote. "Iraq, at best, is mixed for the president: He may have captured Saddam Hussein, but US casualties are higher, Iraqi casualties have risen," according to presidential historian Allan Lichtman of American University in Washington. <b>So while Bush's first major advertisement blitz loudly evokes details from the 2001 terrorist attacks that left 3,000 people dead -- including firefighters carrying a flag-covered stretcher out of smoldering New York rubble, sirens blaring in the background -- it is mute on the campaign in Iraq. In fact, the commercials mention the 2001 recession, corporate scandals, the popping of the technology-stock bubble, job losses, the need to improve schools and health care, but not one word about the US-led occupation. </b> Although Bush has refused to budge on the June 30 deadline for transferring sovereignty, Iraq's political future is clouded in doubt, which makes bold assertions about success there dangerous. "He's more at the mercy of events there than he's controlling events. Will there really be the transfer of power on June 30, July 1? Will the bombings and the attacks against US soldiers continue?" said Eric Davis, a political scientist at Middlebury College in Vermont. Bush has been badly burned in the past after expressing upbeat certainty about Iraq, most notably when he declared "major combat" over on May 1 in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...311/pl_afp/iraq_war_1year_us_040311145141&e=5
Starting tonight, Bush goes negative... ___________________ "100 Days": George W. Bush: I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message. Female voiceover: A president sets his agenda for America in the first 100 days. John Kerry's plan: to pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least 900 billion dollars. On the war on terror: weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America. And he wanted to delay defending America until the United Nations approved. John Kerry: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense. ----------------- "Forward": George W. Bush: Over the past three years, Americans have faced many serious challenges. Now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence, resolve and hope, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat. We can continue to work to create jobs, reform education, and lower the cost of health care. Together, we're moving America forward. I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message. -------------------- 60 second version of "100 Days": George W. Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message. Voiceover: Roosevelt. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Reagan. Throughout history, The President of the United States has set an agenda for America in his first 100 Days. In President Bush's first 100 Days, he pushed for historic education reforms, higher pay for our soldiers, and the largest tax relief package in history to grow the economy and create jobs. But John Kerry's first hundred days? His plan to pay for new government spending will raise taxes at least 900 billion dollars including taxes on small businesses--costing jobs and reversing our economic recovery. HeÂ’ll weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America. And Kerry would have delayed defending America until the United Nations approved. Raise Taxes, Weaken the Patriot Act, Delay Defending America. John Kerry: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense.
900 BILLION!!!! Where’d they get that number? I guess it's sort of like the job numbers or the deficit numbers.
btw, even the times thinks the moveon ads should be regulated: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/opinion/11THU2.html -- March 11, 2004 Soft Money Slinks Back We are now engaged in the first federal election contest under the new campaign finance law prohibiting open-ended donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals in federal elections. Already, political insiders are carving a giant loophole that the Federal Election Commission must swiftly close. Otherwise, the system will be flooded again with the large and politically destructive contributions the new law was meant to stop. At issue are a handful of new committees set up by Democratic operatives and dedicated to turning President Bush out of office. The groups are running advertising campaigns in 17 states to counteract Republican commercials that began last week. They insist that because they have no formal ties to the Democratic Party or to John Kerry, they are not bound by the 1974 federal election law or the more recent and restrictive McCain-Feingold law, which prohibits soft money in federal elections. The groups insist that their activities are necessary to offset a 10-to-1 fund-raising advantage in Mr. Bush's favor. We sympathize with the Democrats' desire to level the playing field. But they do not have to subvert the law to do it. Indeed, Mr. Kerry has already announced his intention to raise as much as $80 million in smaller contributions that are legal. Mr. Kerry appears confident that the Democrats can raise money without making end runs around the reform law he voted for two years ago. Indeed, anyone who believes in the Democratic agenda ought to have similar faith that the Democrats, like the Republicans — or Howard Dean — are capable of raising a great deal of money from small donors. In addition, anyone who was angered at phony "issue ads" in the last campaign will have little patience with the claims of one group, the Media Fund, that the ads it just unleashed are all about issues, not promoting candidates. One of the group's first broadsides declares that "George Bush's priorities are eroding the American dream," suggesting that the group's one and only ambition is to retire George Bush. That, in turn, represents an illegal use of soft money by an avowedly political group to influence federal elections. The election commission agreed last month to issue a ruling on whether these groups should be asked to play by the same rules that apply to other political committees. The commission should act quickly. Delay would invite more soft money into a system now meant to exclude it.
nice to be here: kerry goes positive: "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."
contrast kerry with the last democratic president, speaking to the convention in 1996: "I believe that Bob Dole and Jack Kemp and Ross Perot love our country, and they have worked hard to serve it. It is legitimate, even necessary, to compare our record with theirs, our proposals for the future with theirs. And I expect them to make a vigorous effort to do the same. But I will not attack. I will not attack them personally or permit others to do it in this party if I can prevent it. My fellow Americans, this must be--this must be a campaign of ideas, not a campaign of insults. The American people deserve it."
Ha. That's because Clinton was coasting to victory. It's easy to play nice when you know you'll win the game. It's also easy to play nice when your opponents have some principle.
and James Lileks has some useful perspective: "People say all sorts of things in elections. The underlings and infantry fire the cheap shots, and let the big dogs lope along the high road. But when the top officials of the party start slinging the slander, we've entered a different era. And no one seems to notice, because the story becomes the charge, not the nature of the accusation. Accusing one's opponent of treason is a personal attack. Al Gore accused Bush of "betraying this country." Reasonable people could say he misled the country, or misruled the country, and make the argument to support the assertion, but "betrayed" is a word that has a special quality when talking about the President of the United States. I've heard General Wesley Clark question the President's patriotism, and insist that his religious beliefs were misguided, because the Democratic Party is the party that truly hews to Christian doctrines. ._._. And of course we heard Governor Dean insert the "Bush was warned" meme into the body politic. There's nothing comparable on the other side. Nothing. I mean, the Bush team runs an ad that has a second of 9/11 footage, and his opponents pitch a carefully staged fit--because that's all they have."
Contrast him with the vicious attacks Bush leveled at John McCain during the primary and Gore in the 2000 election.
