Blogcritics: Comments on Anyone But Kerry

Comment by James Golden

Tue, 11 May 2004 10:16:02 EDT

But whats your point about Bush saying that about history? Bush is right, you never know how history will regard an administration. It's 2004 and we still don't know how history will regard the Clinton presidency. It's one of those idiotic questions that liberal journalists like to throw at the president in hopes of him making a gaffe or an egotistical statement. That he answered the way he did shows he is smarter than that. And who cares about Sharks post, did Bush carry Texas in 2000? Will he carry it in 2004? That answers the question on his record.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 10 May 2004 18:29:09 EDT

Jack E. Jett; re: the Bush quote to Woodward, where he spreads terror among sane Americans (yes, and that would make him a what, class?): Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." As to the Great State of Texas under Bush, see Shark's post on the Bush Record

Comment by jack e. jett

Mon, 10 May 2004 13:35:24 EDT

Eric: well regarded governor of one of the largest and most diverse states I think this might be a bit of an overstatement. Texas is far from "diverse". It is very conservative. Diversity comes in the form of either Baptist or Catholic. He was only "well regarded" among his group of right-wingers. Many people felt he was just a rich kid who wanted to be like daddy. George W. Bush has one and only one agenda. The world should worship the Lord Jesus Christ and accept him as their personal savior. Nothing less will be tolerated. The most telling comment on his presidency came from him. When asked about how history will regard the war in Iraq, he replied, "I won't be here to know". Jack E. Jett

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 10 May 2004 09:41:31 EDT

Edgar Bergen in '04

Comment by James Golden

Mon, 10 May 2004 09:29:31 EDT

An "Agent!" I'm flattered really. You've made my day.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 9 May 2004 07:08:36 EDT

Charlie McCarthy was a ventriloquist's dummy.

Comment by enditem

Sat, 8 May 2004 23:50:49 EDT

Golden. Many of your statements are overblown hype and fallacious thinking. A few examples out of so many. "the BEST military the world has EVER known." Yeh, the best. Pretty good at abusing and perhaps killing defenseless prisoners and wiping out civilian villages in VN. Pretty good at killing defenseless civilians. Pretty good at getting lost with Jessica. Pretty good at winning wars, Granada, Panama, Gulf WarI, but since WWII it has not won a major war. (Korea and Vietnam were settled without winning. We left Lebenon when we got blasted out.)I am not against our military in their proper roll as defenders of our nation, (and I think our service people should be properly looked-after after their service has been completed, at least those who are injured or damaged in wars) but I think that the military should not be idealized and subjected to hero worship. We are after all a civilian nation, not a militaristic society. voodoo math. Say what? How much will US expenses be over those 10 years? Actually you either are being stupid or intentional deceitful here. "we understand that ALL of the reasons specifed make sense and are valid, whether or not the stockpiles are found" Who is the "we" you are talking about? Not me and I dare say not millions of other Americans. The best evidence is from multiple inspections, even by Bush's handpick guy, saying there are no stockpiles. (Nice one there, Golden, trying to slip in a claim of "fact" when so far there is absolutely no proof of YOUR fact.) You get the picture. Now dear readers do you think this guy Gloden is telling the truth? I don't. He is the kind of commentor you will find on Little Green Footballs, only a bit slicker. I think he is a lying shill for Bush and a Kerry basher with a right wing political agenda. Readers. Please don't vote for the Bush. The people Bush "Charlie McCarthys" ( for those who might not know Charlie McCarthy was a famous hand puppet) for are those who want America pushed back to the pre-1932 era. To a time when there was no overtime pay, when there were few workers' rights and protections, when business interests were unquestionable in the public arena, when civil rights were virtually non-existent in practice (only existed on paper in the various constitutions), when the rich were THE powerful, and when evolution was a dirty word and teaching it was next to being a criminal act. Kerry is the choice. "Flip-flop" is media hype by the Bush political exterminators. They did it to McCain and they did it to Dukacis for senior Bush. JUST BEWARE. It is well known that Bush's agents go to these chat rooms and blogs under false colors to play dirty games on Kerry. This Golden guy sure appears to be a Bush agent.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 8 May 2004 03:24:59 EDT

Personally, I do not hold it against Kerry for protesting the war after he came back from Vietnam. It's certainly his right to express displeasure with American foreign policy, especially after serving his country and fighting for that freedom. James, Bush has expressed displeasure with the American foreign policy that was in place before he came in, starting with the Kyoto treaty in 97. And Bush didn't serve his country by fighting for that freedom either, like you acknowledge Kerry did. So it's good to read you don't hold it against Kerry for being able to maintain the higher standard than you place on your current preference. However, appearing publicly with known communists like Jane Fonda, and accusing his fellow soldiers of wartime atrocities crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Bush has relationships with many Saudi families. Saudi Arabia is a major source of terrorism. There is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. But going to a public event where Jane Fonda is also at, is guilt by association? Okay. If you say so. And Kerry committed the crime of accusing fellow soldiers of wartime atrocities? Um, turned on the tv in the last 48 hours? Then there is the flip-flopping. "I voted for the $87 billion...." In the spring of 2002, Bush claimed he had all the empowerment he needed to go to war with Saddam, that the resolutions from Congress approving Gulf War 1 and the UN at that time gave him all the legal authorization he needed. Brent Scowcroft, in the Washington Post, made Bush think twice about saying much more about this. Consequently, Bush adopted Powell's plan to seek both Congressional approval and a new UN resolution. Hence, 1441. Hence, the Iraq War resolution. The fact that Bush needed time to amass his troops meant that little was lost by seeking the appearance of an imprimatur from the rest of the country and the world. And indeed, in the fall of '02, both Congress and the UN went along with it because they were afraid to stand up to Bush's popularity post 9/11. It is difficult to recall how powerful he was, but at the time he also had a lock on the American press's perception of his administration; no one was asking any hard questions (except for bloggers, and no one was reading them). Had Congress challenged Bush and refused to pass a resolution in '02, he simply would have gone to war anyway. He really was that popular. He would have demonized Congress with his patented viciousness. Just as viciously as he trashed the UN in March, 2003 when it became clear they would not pass a followup to 1441 specifically authorizing war, rather than just "consequences." In other words, the Iraq resolution was simply a wink-wink nudge-nudge rubber stamp of a vote, necessary merely to perpetuate the facade that the modern Congress actually had a say in the matter of whether the US should go to war. Everyone knew war would come no matter what, so why not support the inevitable? (response to Kerry's voting on Iraq War taken from "The Iraq War Lie Mutual Embrace" located partway down previous link) It would have been political suicide to vote any other way. But the fact is that Kerry, not Bush, voted against this very important spending bill that, had it not passed, would have left our troops without the supplies they needed to survive. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing. "The body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed. Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as Bush and yourself depict him doing. There was one vote on the entire package." source-factcheck.org The flip-flopping doesn't end there. Kerry's record is rife with inconsistencies too long to list here. There is a growing number of moderate Republicans who feel that Bush has strayed from the platform he ran on, and turned to a far more neo-Christian agenda that is alienating them. All politicians have inconsistencies in their record, as things come back by again, there are more pork barrel attachments to them, which might change one's vote. Bush didn't keep to his platform. You hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush. Kerry has gone on record saying that in his first 100 days in office, he will go on a worldwide tour apologizing for past American foreign policy, and reassure the world that we are ready to work with the U.N. again. If you have never paid attention to the dysfunctional family that is the U.N., this might sound like a good idea. Personally, I agree with you that the U.N. is a paper tiger when it comes to action/security. America always was and still is the power behind the U.N. However, the political arena extends beyond the White House doors and there is still the benefit of working with the U.N. as it is comprised of the voices of other nations and is costly to be snubbed. As for whether working with the U.N. or not is productive, it is if you see fighting terrorism as involving much more than battling with tanks in city streets. Thankfully, Kerry does. the U.N. can not be trusted with crafting U.S. foreign policy. Can you elaborate on how, in the space of a paragraph, we have gone from 'working with the U.N.' to the U.N. crafting our foreign policy? Further, while the U.S. has made mistakes, we make decisions based on the best information around, rather than trying to win a popularity contest. Is Kerry trying to win the war on terror, or is he trying to be "liked?" With terrorism and anti-American sentiment in practically every nation on the planet, read your last sentence above again, and think about how much easier the former objective would be achieved if the latter was achieved. As of this writing, nearly a million new jobs have been created since January 2004.,/i> Yeah, they're called Kerry Campaign Workers. No, actually they're in call centers in India. Okay, seriously, a lot of this is due to Bush's tax rollback of the middle class, giving them more spending power. But this is something Kerry wanted anyway. Kerry's website says that he will soon be unveiling a plan to create 10 million jobs. No further details on this fantasy plan are available, and I don't expect much. The government isn't here to create jobs - that's what private companies are supposed to do in a capitalism like ours. Yes, that's what private companies are supposed to do, but thanks to the handiwork of Bush, it's more lucrative for private companies to create those jobs overseas. There is a large contingent of the middle class extremely concerned about outsourcing. Kerry's plan is to encourage companies to create jobs in America and stop shifting jobs overseas for tax reasons. Since that is a legitimate problem, many of us like the idea. Kerry will eliminate all of the tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and use the savings to encourage companies to create jobs in America. Kerry will help jumpstart job creation with a New Jobs Tax Credit paid for by a one-year tax holiday to encourage companies to reinvest their foreign earnings in America. International tax reform is part of Kerry's overall plan to regain America's competitive edge, together with policies to lower the cost of health premiums for companies, modernize our information infrastructure, and increase investments in education. Plenty of detailed info on the plan is at johnkerry.com. he would roll back tax cuts that primarily benefited "the wealthiest Americans." It's hard to tell exactly who he is talking about when you consider that by IRS standards, people making over $50,000 a year could be considered "wealthy." He's been on record as saying it's 200,000 and over. Not 50,000. it's hard to understand how increasing taxes would improve our economy. It's to pay for the war, for one thing. It's to pay for the uninsured and for universal coverage. Although I'm not a big fan of the government controlling health care, by his methodology, premiums for the middle class would go down, thereby giving them more money in addition to letting them keep their tax cuts, which helps boost the economy by giving them more spending money AND gives all people health coverage. It's a double win situation. As I said, while I personally don't think the health care service might get much better under the gov.'s rule, it couldn't be worse than it is now. Not for this household. Besides, it's not going to be much of a factor in my own vote as I see much more importance behind other issues like civil liberties, separation of church and state and such. I feel these issues are threatened, whether covered by the media or not, and I feel they need to overrule any conflicting ideals I might have towards health care right now. But that's me, I do know health care will be a major voting issue for millions. It's doubly concerning that Kerry would put those who are in the greatest need (the most expensive cases), at the will of the bureaucracy that is the U.S. government. Premiums may go down for the average middle class family, but taxes will undoubtedly increase to pay for this, and quality of care will drop to an all time low. Where do you draw the conclusion that taxes will increase? Do you have any references for that? When Kerry developed his plan, he figured ALL Americans. That already includes those who are in the greatest need. It's not like he forgot to include lung transplants or something. Quality of care drops to an all time low? There are many universal health care setups in nations around the world where that hasn't happened. They rank right alongside the U.S. Everything works in conjunction. Stimulating the economy by boosting the middle class AND removing the tax burden that has made the middle class carry the rich for years, AND giving the poor and the growing number of middle class who have no insurance, some health care, all works together to make a better, richer nation. Statistics might show that Bush's economy is being stimulated right now (although the 'new' economy hasn't hit this house yet), but what exactly is he doing about the rest? "When I look back on my years in office," says C. Everett Koop, Reagan's former Surgeon General, "the things I banged my head against were all poverty." If all people are able to get healthcare, then the odds of running into someone not vaccinated while you are on your business flight drops quite a bit, doesn't it? Lot less colds, flus, etc. to treat. Premiums WILL drop. Business will thrive with the extra productivity. (Supposedly. Personally, I think we all use our sick days, whether we're sick or not). Come this November, I say anyone but Kerry, but hopefully Bush. It's been interesting to note, that in my few weeks here, I've noticed a lot of pro-Bush and anti-Bush people, instead of pro-Bush and pro-Kerry people. Kind of corroborates your opening line about people on the streets of NY. I think if the anti-Bush people really want to achieve their objective, they really need to think about how to make that happen. Just being anti-Bush won't do it. It isn't doing it. Besides, if anybody gets into the White House on a anybody-but-former-president vote, then he will have a huge societal morale problem to deal with when he gets in office which will make it harder for this country to get anything done. Then the anti-Bush people will have to deal with 4 years of gloating and I told you so.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 7 May 2004 22:19:54 EDT
Golden: "Ms. Tek, Hitler could never be defended, and Bush is hardly hitler." Ah, but the day is young! (Just an FYI: Shark is officially voting for Bush in 04. Seriously. When someone shits in their own hat, I like to see 'em put it back on. Can't wait for November! GO BUSH!)

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 7 May 2004 21:44:23 EDT
And I disagree Hal, you cannot compare countries like that. I'll pass your opinion on.

Comment by chsa

Fri, 7 May 2004 21:30:51 EDT
Anybody but Bush or Kerry! Nobody for president!

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 7 May 2004 21:13:27 EDT
I'm not one advocating national health care. I don't care much for any program the government has to 'run'. Look at the DMV and tax collecting. I was just throwing out a comment of not being able to use the technology we have now, rather than posing an alternative. I don't know what would be best, but letting capitalism (HMO's) do it, totally sucks. The middle class is mired in paperwork and details and has to wait forever. The discrepency between the treatment/facilities of the rich and priviledged vs. the poor should make us all hang our head in shame that we let it continue like it is. One only needs to correlate the infant mortality rate between the classes to see a significant difference that can only be a tip of an iceberg.

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 20:27:01 EDT
And I disagree Hal, you cannot compare countries like that. Infant mortality rates, average lifespan, all are determine by so many things other than healthcare. Costs are high, but thats because of a screwed up insurance and malpractice system. It can be fixed!

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 20:23:10 EDT
Mike, you can't eat too many of those oysters! There are certainly bad hospitals in the US, but there are plenty of hospitals that are the absolute best in the world as well in the US. What's the best hospital in the world to treat cancer? What about heart medicine? Both right here in NY. I agree HMOs suck but that goes further to my point, if the government were the only HMO, imagine what that would be like? If we had a recession and had to cut spending or raise taxes, we'd raise taxes, further screwing the economy, all in the name of maintaining healthcare. Remember when HMO's first came about, in an effort to reduce insurance costs? This was a first step towards a national system. It failed miserably as it was just another cost center. Managed care doesn't work. The way to fix the system is to limit malpractice suits, lengthen drug patents while setting price limits on drugs, and do away with collective bargaining for insurers so that everyone pays the same price for care. That's a first step towards fixing a broken system.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 7 May 2004 18:50:24 EDT
BTW, that link is disingenuous, you cannot compare countries that way. Of course you can. Try convincing some health professionals with international credentials of the rightness of your claim and see what response you get [Hint :-)].

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 7 May 2004 18:47:54 EDT
if you are gonna bash Bush for the deficit, then you must also bash Clinton for spending No, that doesn't follow - there's neither connection nor resemblance.

Comment by mike

Fri, 7 May 2004 18:15:43 EDT
I recently became ill from food poisoning in New Orleans and had to go to the Tulane University emergency room, in a poor section of the city. What I saw there was underfunded healthcare on a horrific scale, worthy of a third world country. And that is typical of inner city hospitals throughout this country, which serve millions of people. Therefore, the United States does not have "the best healthcare system in the world." Period.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:56:31 EDT
The US might have a great healthcare system but good luck trying to use it. In 4 years, we've had to go through 3 HMO's. They're all unethical and deceptive. Got a back ache or can't sleep and want to see a doctor? One's available in 5 months. What good is having one of the best health care systems in the world if you can't use it?

Comment by Nick Jones

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:46:11 EDT
Canada, JG.

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:42:54 EDT
BTW, that link is disingenuous, you cannot compare countries that way. Japan doesn't have a baby boomer set. Norway doesn't have the GDP that we do. Does any of this take into account our national obeisity issues (a medical problem, but not because of lack of healthcare). You cannot compare countries that are not similar in this way. This is really comparing apples to oranges.

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:36:44 EDT
Yes, I've seen that link, but I must wonder, if you were sick, what country would you go to for treatment? Come on now, be honest!

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:33:14 EDT
Mike, you say they want it, but polling says otherwise. Take it up with the conference board of canada. And regardless of canadian failures at privatization, we didn't experience those failures. Hal, the problem with these projections is that they can say whatever the creator wants them to say - if a value remains fixed (i.e. tax revenues) when it clearly is influenced by the ebb and flow of the economy, then the projections are educated guesses at best. I can't disagree with Greenspan or you on the point that these deficits are unsustainable, but I would wait another year or so and see how the economy moves before going crazy about it. Greenspan was talking about the long term, not the immediate term. Also, I think that more than our deficit, the fact that we went through a recession has hurt global economics more than anything. The world is dependent on our trade and the last few years hasn't had much trade. You cannot pin it all on the deficit. And frankly, we had to run a deficit. Basically, if you are gonna bash Bush for the deficit, then you must also bash Clinton for spending. It's a two part process.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:32:56 EDT
The U.S. has the greatest healthcare system in the world. No, it doesn't. The Myth of Better US Health Care

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:27:31 EDT
Mark, it's 600 billion including the war. We've been paying war costs all along. Remember the 87 billion dollars? Oh, yeah - in his projections for at least reducing the deficit over the next five years (never mind that it will increase in ten), Bush conveniently left out a number of costs that will be required. From one of my previous links:
The IMF noted that the outcome could be even worse because of Bush's "optimistic assumptions" such as that there will be no costs for Iraq beyond this year (a likelihood somewhere between zero and minus four), extreme spending restraint (have you seen what your Senators and Representatives are doing?) and others.

Comment by James Golden

Fri, 7 May 2004 17:25:10 EDT
MARK! YOU GOT ME!!! I didnt live in every other westernized country, so I don't have any facts to back up that statement. I must admit that my love for my country to some degree influenced my comments. However, I've noticed that most people that live in other countries, they still want to come here. And I've also noticed that we actually let some of them in. The fact that the rest of the world wants to be here, the fact that we take in all kinds and that they shape our national psyche, and even the simple fact that you referred to it as "westernization" (west = u.s. not the cowboys old west) proves that yes, this is the greatest country in the world. And no, I have not been to all of the others.