Did Bush sandbag Kerry?

[Dave Schwartz]

I came across this rather inteteresting take on the first Bush-Kerry debate. Give it a read then answer the question, please.


http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/lbutler_20041004.html

[betchatoo]

Not a chance. Bush was solidly ahead in all the polls going into the debate and no strategist would have risked that lead. You don't make plans based on the second and third debate because they have been traditionally less watched and less impactful than the first.

[chickenhead]

Chimp playin possum?

No way...he was working hard....it's hard work.

[Secretariat]

lol...Dave what an article. The guy proceeds to asssert that he thinks bush won the debate, and then that bush was sandbagging it, and then blames it on the media, and then returns to that bush was sandbagging it.

The writer may be right. Maybe bush was sandbagging it. nobody could look that stupid on purpose.

[Lefty]

sec, the Pres. did not look stupid. He look tired and annoyed at all the lying and diff positions Kerry was taking. Kerry's really hard to take for 90 min. Kerry wins on style, give him that; but Bush wins on substance and truthfulness. We had one "slickwilly" that was more than enough.

[hcap]

Otherwise known as spinning on empty.

Even the rightwing bloggers are having a difficult time finding support for that performance. Rope-a-dope on steroids?

Only time he was worse was on meet the press. I think he really took offense at being questioned. Kinda strange.

About a month ago I posted that he "might loose it". Hubris and almost literal acceptance of administrations' spin that he IS the war president, did him in. I don't see a marked improvement in futher debates. Cheney, I think is a tougher debater than bush. Edwards has his work cut out.

[ljb]

Bush looked bush league.
He was/is clearly outclassed. This is the first time in 3 years that he has had to face reality. (Truth bites em in the arse). He did not take kindly to the truth. His trainers will do everything possible to get him in condition for round two but he may need meds to stay the course this time. Maybe we should demand post race drug testing. :D :D :D

[Tom]

I think that was all he had to offer. Obviously, he and his team did not prepare for the debate and he entered it "without an exit strategy."
I think that that will prove to be his best performance of the three. I can only see him going down the tubes rather quickely. W has lost touch with reality and is bascially running on empty.
Sad, because all we have for the most important elected office in the world are two dipsticks, dumb and dumber.:(

[Lefty]

Bush is not slick, will never be slick. He has only one position on things while Kerry has many.
If you want slick and indecisive then you know who to vote for.
If you want the truth, and sometimes it's not what we want to hear, then vote Bush.

[Dave Schwartz]

I just knew you guys would enjoy this article. <G>

Personally, I picked "Possible, but not likely."


However, my own take on the debate (i.e. what I got from it as opposed to what I think most Americans got from it) was that Kerry spent all his time attacking and no time talking about precisely what he would do.

I heard things like, "I'd have made sure our boys had better equipment in Iraq (even though I voted against buying it for them," or "What we really need is more social programs but lower taxes," or "Iraq isn't the center of the war on terror. We should attack the center," or "We should always have global consent to attack a country (that Bush attacked) except when it is a country that Bush didn't attack because he did not have global consent."

I mean, really. The guy said this kind of stuff.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't think the Bush camp intentionally sandbagged in the first debate, but I'm sure they learned a lot, and should learn from it and improve. Kerry looked good in the debate, even though he had no proof of substance. So hopefully next time, they some out looking for his posturing, and shoot Kerry's plans and inconsistencies full of the holes. Not deliberate sandbagging, but the kind of improvements one would expect. It may (and hopefully) will have a similar effect, though.

[JustRalph]

more importantly....... I don't think the debate changed any minds...............and if it did..........those people are idiots. The debate has no bearing on which direction the country will go. If you don't know who these two guys are by now..........you will never know...........

[Lefty]

JR, and that's the bottom line!

[Dave Schwartz]

I think it is undeniable that this race is much tighter than we conservatives believe.

Latest Gallup:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/politics/main647260.shtml


This could be scary.

[Tom]

Not the debates, but Bush himself. I no longer support him, and in fact, I think his re-election will be far worse than Kerry winning. Bush's refusal to protect our borders is unacceptable. He is nothing more than a shallow, miserable excuse of a president who is a failure for homeland security. I have to believes that his entie presidency is in fact based on doing what "daddy" failed to do. His warning to his party to back off legitimte provisons of the bill cannot be tolerated. As president, he has done absolutely nothing to protect our borders, and in fact, he has made the crisis worse than pre- 91-- days. Now he is practicing lossing control of borders in Iraq. This guy is incompetent. He has to be replaced.

He cannot buy my vote a measly $300. I only hope the republican leadership has enough integrity and courage to tell him to go pound salt and proceed with their House Bill 911, with the real meat to protect us left intact. the only reason W can have for wanting to defeat the measures has to be he is bought and paid for by corporate America.

I have no repsect for Kerry, but if he is president and the republicans control both houses, then damage to our country is minimized. The only thing the debates showed was that we two sorry losers running for our highest office.
Sad to think that the best this once-great natin has to offer now is grdilock. It takes great leaders to make a country great. America is fresh out of them.:(

[Lefty]

Tom, you're changing your positions about as often as Kerry himself.
Dave, after the next debate, next poll, things probably change again.

[superfecta]

I think I said the same thing but in a simpler way.but it was not a "sandbag."Bush wants to make clear what he has done and will continue to do.Kerry did not say anything specific.Two different styles of campaigning.If Bush is smart he will continue to debate this way.As long as he keeps pace with Kerry,not letting himself getting caught in a "lie"(no new taxes)that can be used as a smear ,he will get the undecided vote,much of it due to default,the voter that knows nothing will most likely vote on how he is doing now,prefering to keep the status quo rather than change.

[schweitz]

Dave, don't know what the polls really are but I would certainly be skeptical of a CBS/New York Times poll.

[schweitz]

Another poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/vote2004/kerry_gaining_poll_041004.html

[Shacopate]

No way.

65 million people watched this debate, which will likely be more than any other debate. Bush could have delivered the knock-out punch and coasted home. Instead, he acted like he didn't want to be there. This debate closed the gap to a statistical dead heat and has energized the Democratic party.

Bush was "on message" the whole night, but Kerry obviously prepared better and definitely helped himself.

I think the next format favors Bush, even though staffers didn't want this debate. His strength is likeability, a good sense of humor and the ability to connect with people. I think the first debate (with the audience not allowed to respond) limited his repertoire.

Look for the all important "sound bite" one-liners to be in full force friday night.

If Kerry takes Bush likely, he will end up looking silly. The same for Bush if he waits until saturday to say what he should have said on friday.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Bush looked bush league.
He was/is clearly outclassed.

Man, if I am Al Gore, I'd shoot myself about now. Bush kicked his butt not once, but three times....what does that say about ol' Al?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
I only hope the republican leadership has enough integrity and courage to tell him to go pound salt and proceed with their House Bill 911, with the real meat to protect us left intact. the only reason W can have for wanting to defeat the measures has to be he is bought and paid for by corporate America.

Tom, act like a good dem and give me a link to this!! You say you think you might have seen this on Lou Dobbs? Links! Where is your link!?!?

[Shacopate]

In the upcoming debates, I would like to see these candidates discuss the "third rail" of politics, which is Social Security.

2018 is the year predicted as the "day of reckoning". When benefits paid out will exceed wage-tax revenue coming in.

[Lefty]

Shac, Bush has discussed SS a lot. He wants to partially privatize it so it not only survives but our kids and grandkids have a better retirement than we. Then the Dems run out and lie and scare the old folks by saying the Repubs want to take their SS away.

[Shacopate]

Lefty,

Where does the funding for privatized accounts come from?

[Shacopate]

Pete Peterson, former Commerce Secretary said that if all you do is take some of the payroll taxes out and put in funds, but leave benefits the same, all you're doing is adding to the national debt.

[Equineer]

I voted for Bush last time, and I was anticipating that he wouldn't/couldn't risk defeat in November over Iraq... that he would announce a concrete plan to pull out of a clear-cut mess.

The public doesn't doubt Bush's patriotic sincerity... but Bush in the debates reminded me of how Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Carter were unable to mask their disappointment when their best intentions were undermined by powerful interests that are not easy to publically counterattack.

All the good options were at the front end of the Iraq confrontation. Both candidates realize that their current options are limited and overlapping. I read Bush's demeanor while Kerry spoke as I might imagine an outgoing Mets manager would react listening to the promises of his replacement... "My friend, you have no idea what you are getting into!"

[Shacopate]

Equineer,

What's your take on Social Security?

[ljb]

See this has moved on to SS. Lefty has suggested privatizing SS. Does that mean SS will be handled by such sterling folks as Ken Lay?
Or does he mean the government will be taxing us and giving the money to other private investors.
Or does it mean the government will reduce the amount of SS taxes we pay in an attempt to allow us to invest in private enterprise? We do have this option now you know with 401ks and other methods which allow us to reduce/eliminate taxes on our investments. Not as great as the corporate breaks but they are there for the commonwealth as well.
My basic thoughts on the neocons fiscal policy is, they are attempting to bankrupt America. If America is bankrupt they will have to eliminate all expenses except those that go to defense (Halliburton etc.). The past three years of fiscal irresponsibility show this to be happening.
Not once did the president show any signs of fiscal responsibility, allowing billions of our tax dollars to be frittered away on unneeded pork barrel projects. A real conservative would call him to task for such actions.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Equineer
I read Bush's demeanor while Kerry spoke as I might imagine an outgoing Mets manager would react listening to the promises of his replacement... "My friend, you have no idea what you are getting into!"

Why do you place so much emphasis on Bush's demeanor during the debate? Do his 4 years as President count for nothing? Either you approve of the job he is doing, or you don't. Basing your decision on one debate isn't very rational, in my opinion.

[hcap]

Bushs' demeanor is open for examination as Gores' sighs were in 2000. Difference is Gore won on substance.

After watching the replay of one of the 2000 Bush-Gore debates, it seems clear bush has deteriorated in ability and demeanour. Although I thought Gore beat him on substance handily, those stupid sighs did him in. Mostly due to the media exagerating and spinning. But bush did fairly well on substance-seemed reasonable to an extent, and did not act pissed off at all. I think he is in a tailspin now, and maybe this supports the Doctor Bush and Mister Hide theory. The 2 faces of the preznit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5888-2004Oct4?language=printer

Which Is the 'Real' Bush?
"The notion that voters may come away from the debate thinking of Bush as someone who becomes upset when challenged is potentially devastating to the image of the president that the White House has fostered since Sept. 11, 2001."

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, October 4, 2004; 12:36 PM


....."Adam Nagourney writes in the New York Times: "An administration official, speaking anonymously because he also did not want to be identified as critical of Mr. Bush's debate performance, said he had been astounded to see Mr. Bush repeatedly display on television a disdainful look that was familiar to people who work with him in the White House, but which aides, in preparing him for the debates, warned against."

....." Presidential historian Richard Reeves writes in an opinion column: "What happened to Bush? What's wrong with him? I would say he has a bad case of Ovalitis -- an ear infection endemic to the Oval Office. Sit there long enough, and you don't hear anything you don't want to hear.

At first the president must have seen through all the bowing and scraping, but gradually it became his due; he is the boy in the bubble. And the bubble moves with him around the country as his staff and the Secret Service protect him from any unpleasant words or people. Tickets to his rallies are given only to the loyal. He holds no press conferences. He hides away out there in the Crawford sagebrush. He's alone."

[hcap]

"The Man Who Had All the Luck,” by Arthur Miller.

There’s a character named Amos, who, throughout the play, is being groomed by his father, Pat, to be a star pitcher. Pat trains him relentlessly, drilling him in their basement, working him out in a place where there will be no distractions. Everyone expects that Amos is going to be a big star, and finally, he goes before a big-league scout. But the scout takes one look at the kid, and says that he doesn’t have what it takes. The father is stunned. Why? This kid has trained relentlessly, with no distractions. That’s just the point, the scout says. The kid is undeniably good, but at crunch time, when he’s in a stadium with a crowd screaming, he gets rattled. He’s spent too much time in the basement.


Kinda makes you wonder if bush gets out much? And what strong war president needs a petulant/peevish tone?
If this sets in among the undecided voter, bush loses.

[Lefty]

Shac, there are economists for figuring out the details. The point is, if NOTHING is done then it will go bankrupt. So people like lbj, who contribute no ideas want nothing to be done cause they fritter their small minds about the consequences of doing something when the consequences of doing nothing is worse. This kind of mindset bts me.
Not everyone has access to a 401K. And you can only contribute a small amt to an IRA. The privatized part would be in complete control of the citizen except he couldn't spend the funds till a certain age.

[Lefty]

hcap, You worry more about "tone" and "style" than substance.

[hcap]

Lefty, Kerry won on substance as well.

[Lefty]

hcap, how do you figure? He voted for the war and against the funding to give our troops what they need. He debated Dean in the primaries as being for the war and when he won the primaries has shifted his position back and forth. "Wrong war at the wrong time" but he voted for it. Sorry but when the President(whomever he is)does not have the luxery of hindsight.
"America must pass a Global test."
If that's your take on substance the no thanks. How does he get away from the flip-flops? I don't think he can.

[ljb]

From Lefty
Shac, there are economists for figuring out the details.

Lefty, doesn't sound like you, letting the economists figuring out the details.
Also would these be the same economists that figured out the details in Kenny boy Lay's Enron fiasco or does Bush have another crook in mind?

[hcap]

Lefty, Kerry was more consistant about his position on the war than bushs' ever morphing rational for going to war.

Bush's rhetoric. He says "Kerry voted for the Iraq war."

But when bush asked Congress for the resolution, when Andy Card rolled it out after Labor Day, Bush claimed it was a vote for peace:

..." you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace."


Kerry from day one....actual quotes

Oct. 9, 2002

Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

Sept. 9, 2003

Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot's Point, S.C.:

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace."

March 18, 2003

Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad:

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time."

Dec. 3, 2003

Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Sept. 20, 2004

New York University:

"President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?"

Now you tell me when bush says...

BUSH: It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

Remember? Bush said he wanted the authorization to use force so that he'd have a strong bargaining chip at the United Nations--and that the U.N. would get new inspectors in, and that, maybe, this would lead to Saddam disarming without a war.

That's why Kerry voted for the resolution. As he said at the time. Now bush the flip fopper.

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

_In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

_He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

_He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

_Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

_Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

_A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said last week in Missouri.

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials....

[kenwoodallpromos]

It is possible he is mainly working on the domestic issues and it is obvious he is tired of the Iraq War debate and Kerry's BS and it showed.
The media just wants the race to be as close as possible so they have news to talk about. If Kerry was ahead they would have said Bush won.
They left out a lot.
Most voters see some ads and pay attention after all the debates,

[Lefty]

hcap, prob. is you don't know substance from nitpicking.
lbj, you just say things, true or not. Clinton helped Enron, Bush refused to help Enron and now the Bush justice dept. prosecuting them. Please try to include some semblence of truth in your posts.

[hcap]

Lefty,

This is substance. The issue of whether or not we are safer.

[hcap]

This is nitpicking. Using only style to determine the winner of the debate. Like some silly reference to bush is toast

[PaceAdvantage]

The graph is meaningless unless you detail the "Terrorism Research Center's" method of counting.

What constitutes a "terrorism event?"

Do the insurgents in Iraq constitute a terrorism event?

By the way, where is the Terrorism Research Center located? Sounds like they might be located in a basement somewhere in Gotham City.

[hcap]

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=About&file=index

Pretty legit org. Don't know their methodolgy.
Don't think Iraq is over represented on the graph. Events top off in the hundreds not thousands.

I remember there was a retraction of official state department figures, as underestimated. Even Powell came out and said the original numbers were bad.

A more recent article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise
NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem
NBC News

"NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
Tom, you're changing your positions about as often as Kerry himself.
Dave, after the next debate, next poll, things probably change again.

Not so, Lefty. My position on prtecting our country has not changed a bit, i tis just that Bush has fallen woefully behind and I no long view him as a viable defender of our freedom. In fact, I see him a a major weak link and he needs to be removed asap. His ridiculous stance on the border issue and dealing with illegal aliens makes him a roadblock to security.
He has already rpvoen his fiscal irresponsibility by backing the largest entitlement bill in decades ( the prescription drug bill).
He has shown ignorance in identifying the real threats to our nation - illegal aliens working in a factory that sends preared food directly to our troops - posining that would so much easier than the 9-11 planwas it isn t funny. Just a few miles away from that factory, 25 illegal aliens found working under phony SS numbers in a Texas port that handles sensitive governemtn materials.
His idiiotic stance about legalizing illegal aliens already here is enough to put him in the looney bin. As a Texas resident, he should well aware of the problems with illegals sneaking over our borders, yet he has ignored the problem. He is killing the airline industry with absolutely studpid security measures that if anything, make it easier for terrorist-looking people to board planes becasue everyone is afraid to single one out for fear of being tagged as a profiler. He has no sense of what things cost and he is drainging us of our riches through idiodic polices that will utlimately benifit no one.
You yourself have said it was better that we fight the terrorist in Iraq than here, but he is doing nothing to keep them out of here and he is fighting them over there on THEIR terms! WE have the most powerful militray machine in the history of warfare bogged down by a rag-tag bunch of hastily thrown together insurgents. How many months have we been losing lives in Fallujha?
Bush's war strategy is stupid and unacceptable.
Now he thorwing away our money to hold elections in Afghansitan and Iraq, where there will NEVER be democracy.
You CANNOT unite tribes of differing religions who hate each other. The Soviet Union fell apart i large part due to its involvment in Afghanistan, It will hapeen to us, as well. We cannot win the peace over there. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill the terrorist and capture their leaders. WE are not going to ever, ever make them our friends.
I hav eginvem Bush the benefit of the doubt many, many, times, and every time, he just amazes me with continued stupidity and inaction.
But his refusal to protect our borders is just the last straw.
Bush is incompetenet and he must go. Now.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Tom, act like a good dem and give me a link to this!! You say you think you might have seen this on Lou Dobbs? Links! Where is your link!?!?

Dem? I don't think so. I have not changed my opinion of the largely moronic liberal population. I have just com eto my sense about the inablilty of Bush to protect our country.
Too many "dots" are going unconnected again.
I wish I had a link, but I just cannot find this stuff anywhere but on Lou Dobbs TV show.
Again today, it was a lead story. Fortunately, the Republican leadership is prepared to ignore Bush's warnings and push this bill ahead. I thinking at last, the intellegent minds in congress are fed up and not going to take the crap anymore.
Watch Lou Dobbs tonight at 11pm...it is a very compelling story going on here, and one I am not hearing in too many places.
Also of much interest is the piece on outsourcing our personal data overseas.
Bush said you are either with us or against us. This appilies to him as well.
I cannot in good conscince vote for a president who is ignoring our security.
Nor willI vote for Kerry. My hope is that even if he winds, his just such an obvious idiot no one will take him serioulsy and he will accomplish nothing.
I am voting only for candidates who are neith Dems or Repubs - the two party system has failed and we have to pave the way for viable third party candidates. The DNC and RNC are both so courrput they cannot be trusted. A major political revolution has to occur to save this country.

[chickenhead]

alright Tom! You've seen the light.....the way both parties refuse to address our borders should be criminal.....a country with no border is no country at all....it is insanity!

[Tom]

I should also point out that democrates are sideing with Bush on this. That alone is scarry.
Neither Bush nor Kerry will do anything to make this country a save or prosperous nation again. It is no longer an issue about who we elect, it now an issue about what kind of government we have. My vote, for whoever, is totally meaningless because of the electoral college. I live in NY and Kerry will take NY state. So conservative in NY state are not reperesented in this election.
The electoral college must be abolished and every Amercian's vote allowed to count. Only that way can we force the candidates to go out there and campaign everywhere, for every vote, and be accountable to the people. This race has turned into two guys out there sucking up to a small number of people in key states.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
illegal aliens working in a factory that sends preared food directly to our troops - posining that would so much easier than the 9-11 planwas it isn t funny. Just a few miles away from that factory, 25 illegal aliens found working under phony SS numbers in a Texas port that handles sensitive governemtn materials.

So how were these illegals in your above example discovered? Somebody trip over them?

[Lefty]

You think Kerry will? LOL
He had the guts to go into Iraq cause it was the right thing to do. He told Woodward if it cost him reelection, so be it. Doing what's right instead of thinking of oneself is a true test of leadership.
Bush said on OReilly he was increasing the border patrols and their funding.

[Lefty]

hcap, nitpicking is when you focus on errors of language substance is when a man diametrically changes his position to accomodate the political winds. Substance is saying we must pass a Global Test.
Hannity played a 2003 clip of interview he did with Kerry. Kerry attacked Dean for changing his positions. Then Kerry said we are better off without Saddam and attacked Dean cause he wouldn't say it.
Substance is when you talk about coalitions and dis Poland. Substance is when you talk about coalitions when your sister is in Australia trying her best to get the incumbent and our partner defeated.
Substance is saying in a black church that Republicans stopped 100000 black voters from voting with not onne iota of proof.
Substance is saying the Repubs will bring back the draft while the bill is being presented by Democrats.
Substance is voting for the war and now say it's the wrong war at the wrong time.
This your hope for the world? GAWD!

[hcap]

Lefty,

All the stuff I posted indicates Kerry is more consistant than bush on substance. All of Kerrys remarks showed where he stood on the authorization to go to war. I personally disagreed from day 1 and would have prefered Kerry and Edwards to NOT authorize. Like Dean.

However the conditions Kerry continually mentioned gave some context for HOW it should have been done..

Oct. 9, 2002

Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

Kerry did not "dis" Poland. The so-called coalition is no comparson to the one put together by his father. More smoke and mirrors by bush. And if Kerry did not mention Poland, I don't think that was dissing. Bush probably dissed Poland in a worse way. The president continually held up Poland which he incorrectly asserted had been part of the initial invasion force, as proof of his coalition-building prowess. Poland's president, meanwhile, has said he was "taken for a ride" on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and the country will soon reduce its troop commitment in Iraq.
What about Australia. The preznit forgot all about the folks down under

Kerry: " Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.

Dueling Quotes

"My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war.
What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?"
--Dubya, in Thursday night's debate,

"They (refering to the bush admins.) deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true.
We were taken for a ride."
-Alexander Kwasniewski,


Lefty you said "Substance is voting for the war and now say it's the wrong war at the wrong time.
Here is what Kerry said..

KERRY: "Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.

Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it.

Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency"

So here we are. A wrong war because we did not do it within the context of the congressional authorization, and as Kerry said, at the wrong time.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So how were these illegals in your above example discovered? Somebody trip over them?

There are about 200 illegals I pass by on my way to work every day, standing around hoping someone will hire them for the day........they don't exactly have to hide once they get here.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by Lefty
Doing what's right instead of thinking of oneself is a true test of leadership.


That's right Lefty....and when it comes to immigration Bush thinks of himself rather than doing what is right.....he can get away with doing nothing because there is no downside politically, Kerry agrees with him so it becomes a moot point.....but don't get it twisted, Bush shows anything but leadership on this issue.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So how were these illegals in your above example discovered? Somebody trip over them?

PA, that is not the point. They were already there. We have to stop them long before they get that far into our societry. How many more are out there right now that we haven't found yet?
We have got to secure our borders. Nothing else matters as much. Why canb't Bush understand this and do something about it? At least understand it and ignore it...right now he is standing in the way of others trying to do it for him. Why? What possible good can come from allowing our borders to be open doors to anyone?
:confused:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
You think Kerry will? LOL
He had the guts to go into Iraq cause it was the right thing to do. He told Woodward if it cost him reelection, so be it. Doing what's right instead of thinking of oneself is a true test of leadership.
Bush said on OReilly he was increasing the border patrols and their funding.

Of course Kerry will not do anything about it., Kerry is a joke, A stooge. But talk is cheap from Bush. What has bhe beenwaitning for? Why is he opposed to the tight measures in House Bill 911> Why is he opposed to making it easier to deport illegals already here? It is a simple question for anyone to ask-how will backing down on this bill make us more secure? I think Bush is not doing what is right, and I want to know why. Why is Bush so damn condescending towards Mexico, a nation that poses a clear and definate danger to us? He owes us an answer, and I want it now.

[schweitz]

I don't believe it is possible to secure our border with Mexico----too many people starving and wanting to work(mostly in jobs that US citizens thumb their noses at)----too much border to control.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
PA, that is not the point. They were already there. We have to stop them long before they get that far into our societry. How many more are out there right now that we haven't found yet?


How do you tell an illegal who snuck in under Bush's watch, and one who snuck in under Clinton's watch? Do you check the stamp on their passport?

[JustRalph]

Tom

I think Bush wants to handle it his way. Not the way Congress wants to do it. I don't think I am completely for Bush's way, but then again if you really want to screw it up........let Congress have their way. It falls under the old "law of unintended consequences" They will do something wrong for sure.

If every illegal disappeared in Columbus Ohio tonight, every Restaurant and contractor would be out of business tomorrow. That may be a little exageration, but not much. My wife has 225 employees'working for her. I would say that 35-40% are mexicans who do a fine job and cause no problems. Every one of them presents "legal documents" because her company demands it. But, there are document mills busted around here all the time. It is beyond control in some situations. there needs to be an answer.

I can tell you this. There is rarely much crime committed here by Illeg. mexican types. But we have a large Somali population that has been linked to Al Quada. So we have a different view here in Columbus. The City of Columbus got grants under the Clinton Admin. to move Somali's here in the mid 90's and they turn out to be terrorists. I am not kidding either. I am sure some of you have read about the plot to blow up shopping malls here. My wife works in one of those malls. Her place was a huge target along with a few others. So, you can see that we aren't real wound up about the Mexican types here. We have other fish to fry, and they came here "Legally" under Clinton.

[chickenhead]

there are many impacts from illegals here in California....one big one is their infiltration of the drug trade.

The mexican marijuana cartels figured out that it is easier to get people into the country than it is bails of marijuana, and they have revolutionized the growing business by importing not only their people but their methods, primarily very large plantation style gardens....this is not your friendly neighborhood subsistence farming hippie, these are professional plantations in our national and state forests, complete with armed mexican nationals as guards.

One sometimes overlooked negative impact of this is the financial impact this has. Say what you will about the marijuana trade in general, but Your normal dope grower spends his money here...he may not pay taxes on his money directly, but he spends that money in local business and that money is circulated throughout the community. With these mexican drug kingpins, the majority of the money is sent back over the border to mexico, creating a big down turn in the amount of money churning through these northern california communites.

The illegal immigrants have also made big in roads in the distribution of cocaine and meth, where 10-20 years ago you did not see much gang activity whatsoever north of San Francisco, you will now find Latino gangs throughout the whole of northern california, fueled primarily by narc traffic and robbery. This obviously has increased or changed the nature of a lot of the street level violent activity having these guys around.

So that is just on one subject their effects, there are many others...

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
How do you tell an illegal who snuck in under Bush's watch, and one who snuck in under Clinton's watch? Do you check the stamp on their passport?

PA, that is not the point!
The point is they are here and they keep coming and we aare not stopping it. This bill would go far to securing our borders and Bush has no valid reason to try to sabatoge it. Try to think what is the present reality, not who is responsible for it. This is not a political issue. It is our friggin borders and any president who will not defend them is not worthy of being president. Period. I respect and agree with what Bush has done overseas, but we don't lose towers over there, we lose then HERE. The pentagon was hit HERE. The capital or WH came close HERE. We missed the dots back then and we are missing them again. The ONLY was to rpevent more terror attacks HERE is to keep them OUT.
We are failing at this miserably.

[Tom]

Ralph,
When do we act? Bush is almost done with his first term and projections are for 3 millioni new illegal to come in this year.
When do we act?
At 10 million, 20, 30?
How many terroists are sneaking in?
There are already reports of Al Qeada people having gotten into Texas. Wehn do we decide to act this time? After the Sears Tower goes down? After the Mall of America is hit with a chemical attack?
We are at war with an enemy that lives and breathes revenge on us 24-7. He is dedicated, guided by Allah, and so far, has attacked us like shooting fish in a barrel for 15+ years.
When do we take him seriously?
Noting we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan are going to stop those already here. Or those already on thier way. Iraq is not the major batllefield - the streets in the USA are where we need to be focusing our main war on terror. Iraq is important, but it by no means the only thing we need to be doing.
The president of Mexico is telling his people that soon there will be no borders between our countries and they are buying it. And Bush keeps sucking up to this scumbag like he was some kind of dignitary or world leader. He is an invading general and deserve nothing from us but a bullet in the head or a rope around his neck.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't think any major politician wants to risk losing a major ethnic vote like Hispanic Americans right before the election. Whether Bush or Kerry did agree with the bill or not, don't expect a major move from anyone who wants to be President in 2005 until after the November election at the earliest, unless one of the others makes a move first. Sorry, just politics.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
PA, that is not the point!
The point is they are here and they keep coming and we aare not stopping it. This bill would go far to securing our borders and Bush has no valid reason to try to sabatoge it. Try to think what is the present reality, not who is responsible for it. This is not a political issue. It is our friggin borders and any president who will not defend them is not worthy of being president. Period. I respect and agree with what Bush has done overseas, but we don't lose towers over there, we lose then HERE. The pentagon was hit HERE. The capital or WH came close HERE. We missed the dots back then and we are missing them again. The ONLY was to rpevent more terror attacks HERE is to keep them OUT.
We are failing at this miserably.


What is the point? Are you going to put up a big wall? Are you going to put a guard and a gun on every 1/2 mile of our border?

That's the only way you will virtually guarantee no terrorists sneaking in across our borders. Anything short of this kind of resource allocation, and you're playing Russian roulette again.

Unfortunately, I think this problem doesn't have an easy solution.

[Tom]

So we ignore it?:confused:

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
So we ignore it?:confused:

We fix it by providing a dis-incentive to sneak across the border. Or regulating the flow via dis-incentive. Make it easier, but regulated. Provide a way to do it that is clean and legal and takes those parties out of the desert. Then the only ones using the desert are the real bad guys. That is what a couple of the Bush plans call for. There are things I don't like about the Bush plans, but I like the overall idea. It would allow for drivers licensing and legal status while they are here. Provide a time limit of a few years at a time. As long as they qualify. No criminal record of violence etc. A process for moving back and forth. It would also provide for a long term plan that would benefit our country by legally employing these individuals in a manner that does not compete with Americans as it does now. Example:

While I was living in California I could hire contractors "off the books" who were undercutting the "legal" contractors by 50% in some cases. But I had to pay cash. The difference was the legal contractor had to hire individuals with "papers" to get them bonded etc. The legal labor works for 30-40% more than the "illegal" labor. If you can legalize the illegal workers (and I heard this from contractors) and mix the pool of workers, the price of labor is the same for every contractor and the result is a level playing field. I responded with "then you are taking jobs from the American workers" The contractors using "legal labor" told me that 90% of their "legal labor" are Mexican's who have papers and drivers license etc. They both said that only 10% or less of their labor would be Americans no matter the conditions. They also said that the Americans that they employed were usually pretty big low lifes too. Following a more regulated easier process would allow the business model to change back to "the best price, the best work" and that would weed out the bad companies. Just like any other open market. In reality 90% of the labor intense positions were not on the radar scope for the American labor force. I was dealing with swimming pool and concrete contractors. I also inquired about this with several people who had lived in California for many years. They all told me that they only hire the "off the book contractors" and don't even entertain the "high priced" contractors. The price difference is too disparate. The thing that surprised me was this; most of the work I checked out that was done by off the books kind of contractors (swimming pool and concrete work mostly) was superior to the "legal or above board guys" It was amazing to me. I looked at twenty different swimming pools and landscaping with concrete work etc. These were done by about 8-10 different companies. Only 2 were above board contractors. The "off the books" guys were did far superior work and all finished in a third the time. And the off the books guys work weekends..........always

[Lefty]

Remember a few yrs ago when the pipples of CA passed a prop to take away incentives for illegals and the libs went to court and struck it dn. It's a tough rd when you're not only battling illegals but also the liberal agenda.

[Tom]

Amd in the meantime, while the politicos waste time and money, any terroists with half a brain could cross our borders. Some already have. It is not enough to cthc them eventually. Eventually, the 19 death pilots died.
I think for a country at war with a global enemie, our governemtn just continues to ignore threats and chug along business as usuall. I see nothing going on in Iraq right now that will prevent a major terror atack in the next few months or even years.
We are not treating the war on terror as a priority.
I see no earthly reason for Bush to be trying to sabotage the House Bill 9-11 other than:
1. Studpidity
2. Coersion
3. Personal gain potential

We are wtihin a month of the most important election in the world, we are at war with a global organiztion, we have failed to stop terrorisnm for 15+ years, and are wasting billions of dollars in Iraq trying to fight a polite war.

And out two dum dums running for president are having hissy fits about each other's mitary records 30 damn years ago.
If theses are best we have to put up for president, it is time to fold the tents and go find a cave to hide in. Becase the terrorists will hunting US down before this is over.

Refusal to protect our borders, and it damn well can be done - is unexcusable and undefendable. And i cannot support a man who is this lax on homeland security. Mark my words, we have had one major deadly attack on his watch. No way in hell we can give him a "bye" on anohter one. And I fear it is coming within the next three weeks.