WaxWorks
|
Friday, January 31, 2003
I have had a copy of this up in my office since January 2001, but I think it is time for people to re-read it and see just how on point it is: the Onion scores again, in a piece dated January 17, 2001, with the headline "Bush: 'Our Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over'
One of the most prescient parts is this section:
WASHINGTON, DC—Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us." . . .
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
Interesting story today on whether Kerry will use the ketchup money in his campaign for President.
This is a somewhat crucial issue, since Democrats face the prospect of being dramatically outspent by Bush in 2004 -- Bush raised over $100 million in 2000, when there was a $1000 per person limit and now with a $2000 per person limit and his stature as an incumbent, one will only assume he will raise much more than that in '04. Also, the Democratic nominee faces the prospect of running out of money over the summer, before he gets the $67 million from the government to run his general election campaign, but while Bush still has millions and millions to spend during that period. This may be another reason to support Kerry . . .
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
I'm not surprised but get a load of this whopper by Andy Card, Bush Chief of Staff. Card actually said the Bush Administration "did not know we were in a recession when we took office," and from that analysis defends the current deficit spending. "After all," Card argues, "the surpluses of the '90s [the one Bush inherited was $236billion] were a result of a growing economy. They weren't really the result of any government policy."
This is unbelievable!!! Does anybody else recall Cheney talking down the economy in December 2000 in an effort to pin the economic downturn on Clinton.
Put simply, Card's statement is a lie. Just an effort to defend the deficit spending by this Administration.
Well, I doubt many people watched the Democratic response to the SOTU last night, and no one is talking about it (no one ever does, unless it becomes legendarily bad, like Bob Dole's stiff and ancient-looking response to Clinton in 1996), but I thought Gov. Gary Locke (WA) was right on the money with his speech. I thought that he presented the Democratic issues perfectly. And I was thrilled that he said that "Osama Bin Laden is still at large," a point Democrats HAD to make in response to Bush. He also hit Bush on the fact that Bush claimed he couldn't release $2.5 billion to the states to help them protect against terrorist attacks because "we couldn't afford it." Read the response -- it reminded me of Clinton in '96 -- Medicare, education and the environment, with Homeland Security thrown in. And sure enough, Michael Waldman, former Clinton speechwriter had a hand in it.
I support the President's plan to help African countries with AIDS, but isn't it interesting that Bush said that he couldn't afford to release that $2.5 billion to protect our country, but he managed to find an additional $10 billion of funding for AIDS in Africa (and god knows how much for a potential war in Iraq?)? Clearly, we can do both.
Also, many Senate Democrats are still furious with Bush for what happened with Max Cleland in November. Cleland, who lost three limbs in his service to this country in Vietnam, was attacked by Bush and Saxby Chambliss for being weak on national security for his opposition to Bush's plan to exempt workers in the Homeland Security Department from workplace protections. Interestingly, Robert Byrd proposed an amendment that would have provided $5 billion more in funding for Homeland Security measures (and no, it wasn't WV heavy in pork spending), but the Republicans, including Mr. Homeland Security himself, now-SENATOR Saxby Chambliss, voted against it, saying we can't afford it. Hmmm.
Monday, January 27, 2003
More bad news on conservatives trying to derail Bush's supposed plan to appoint Alberto Gonzales to the next vacancy in the Supreme Court. I'm convinced that Bush will appoint a Hispanic to the next vacancy (Bush's own pollster has admitted that Bush needs to get 4 million more minority votes in 2004 to win). Miguel Estrada comes up for a vote on Thursday, but he will not have enough time on the Court before a vacancy in June. Garza then?
Here's the PC World article on the Bush form-letters-to-the-editor. It's pretty sad when PC World is beating papers like the New York Times to the punch on these things -- the Times has an article on this subject for the first time today.
This tactic is referred to as "Astroturfing," because these groups are creating to create the false impression of grass-roots support. I like that term.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
|
More on the form-letter pro-Bush movement. Apparently, the Republicans award "points" for letters that are published that can be redeemed for free stuff like mouse pads. So, next time you hear Karen Hughes or Karl Rove talk about how the President is demonstrating "true leadership" or is a "truly popular President," think twice.
