In any political or military campaigns there can come a point where the hearts and minds of the public are up for grabs.
At that point people's views can go decisively one way or the other. In 1980 in the Reagan - Carter presidential campaign it occurred when Reagan asked the public if they were better off than four years ago.
The public said "No" and Carter was toast. In 2000 with the release of George W. Bush's DWI, the public swung toward Gore and gave him the election. (Upset about how the public rejected their candidates, the right wing conspired to overturn the election results and were able to do so.
In 2004 the tipping point may have occurred with the stories of abuse in Iraq. Ever since his forced installation as president by a questionable 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court George Bush approval rating has been on a downward trend, with only 9/11, the Iraqi war and Saddam's capture preventing a total meltdown.
From a high of 56% in April 2001 to his current 48% in May 2004 the public has turned against him and with the election a little over five months away things don't look good.
Short of capture of Osoma Bin Laden or another attack on America, Bush is toast, and even Republicans have figured that out.
Sean Hannity on his radio show said Bush was a man of principles and may end up paying for having principles (Help the rich, go to war, screw the environment).
So basically the GOP is already making excuses on why Bush lost. It's not that he was wrong, but he was willing to stand up for his principles. HAH!
Friday, May 21, 2004
Monday, May 17, 2004
Episode suggestion for JAG
With the television season over and writers probably thinking about topics for next year, here's a suggestion for the writers for JAG.
How about an episode about a politician who served in the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam and new information comes up on whether he completed his service or went AWOL.
Such a show would be very timely, interesting and informative. Over the years it seemed that JAG would take shots at President Clinton, including Episode 94 where Harm faces a court-martial when a letter critical of the President appears on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper and is traced to his computer.
Harm wasn't at fault but he gets to say "It does not matter what I think of him, (referring to President Clinton) he's my Commander-in-Chief."
Nice little quote. Now how about a similar examination of Bush.
How about an episode about a politician who served in the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam and new information comes up on whether he completed his service or went AWOL.
Such a show would be very timely, interesting and informative. Over the years it seemed that JAG would take shots at President Clinton, including Episode 94 where Harm faces a court-martial when a letter critical of the President appears on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper and is traced to his computer.
Harm wasn't at fault but he gets to say "It does not matter what I think of him, (referring to President Clinton) he's my Commander-in-Chief."
Nice little quote. Now how about a similar examination of Bush.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
GOP hits new low
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay an have hit a disgusting new low. In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal and growing dissatisfaction with George Bush, they have decided to attack the formatting of Sen. John Kerry's campaign emails.
Sen. Kerry's emails include an option to donate, a necessity given the GOP's effort to purchase the 2004 election after they stole the 2000 election. (On Thursday Bush's campaign announced they had raised $200 million.) Since Kerry's emails include the donation option, the GOP decided that the emails must not discuss serious topics, such as the abuse scandal.
In the Kerry campaign's e-mail, supporters were thanked for their "amazing" response to a previous e-mail which called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation. As all campaign email include an option for contributions, this one did too. (Actually this email only had one "donate now," compared to two on a more recent email.)
In his attempt to attack Kerry for Bush's failures, Gillespie said the photographs of prisoner abuse are "clearly disgusting, but it's harder to find words to describe those whose first instinct upon seeing them is to raise campaign cash with them."
No, what's disgusting is an attempt to buy an election then attempt to deflect criticism for one's failures on another. But Mr. Gillespie knows the press are suckers and will run his complaints, accurate or not. And judging by the amount of press this story has recieved he is correct.
Sen. Kerry's emails include an option to donate, a necessity given the GOP's effort to purchase the 2004 election after they stole the 2000 election. (On Thursday Bush's campaign announced they had raised $200 million.) Since Kerry's emails include the donation option, the GOP decided that the emails must not discuss serious topics, such as the abuse scandal.
In the Kerry campaign's e-mail, supporters were thanked for their "amazing" response to a previous e-mail which called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation. As all campaign email include an option for contributions, this one did too. (Actually this email only had one "donate now," compared to two on a more recent email.)
In his attempt to attack Kerry for Bush's failures, Gillespie said the photographs of prisoner abuse are "clearly disgusting, but it's harder to find words to describe those whose first instinct upon seeing them is to raise campaign cash with them."
No, what's disgusting is an attempt to buy an election then attempt to deflect criticism for one's failures on another. But Mr. Gillespie knows the press are suckers and will run his complaints, accurate or not. And judging by the amount of press this story has recieved he is correct.
Cheap Shot
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post took an unfair, or unbalanced shot at Teresa Heinz Kerry in Wednesday's Media Notes column. Kurtz reviewed a story on Heinz Kerry's taxes and said Fourteen point seven percent! Hey, I'd like to pay fourteen point seven percent. Where do I sign up?
Heinz Kerry paid a low rate of taxes because, as I understand it, much of her income came from in tax-exempt instruments, similar to Dick Cheney, which a co-worker acknowledged in the very last paragraph of his article.
Heinz Kerry's effective tax rate is similar to Vice President Cheney's. He and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported an income of $1.9 million in taxable and nontaxable income for 2003 and paid $253,067 in taxes, an effective tax rate of 13.3%.
Hey, I make A LOT less than Cheney and I would love to pay only 13.3% in federal taxes. Both Heinz Kerry and Cheney use tax-exempt vehicles to lower their taxes. Is that right? I don’t know, but in a highly political season I do know it is unfair to take a shot at the wife of a candidate while not taking a shot at the candidate’s opponent (running mate) who is doing the same thing.
Granted this is a minor point but Kerry’s campaign seems to be defined by the media by these types of comments. Just look at the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg recent election survey which showed that 56% believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times" and 46%, including a majority of independents, agree that "John Kerry wants to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon."
This leads to mischaracterization by people, as shown in In Ohio, Building a Political Echo by John Harris. Throwaway statements like Kurtz's can contribute to people’s views of Heinz Kerry without considering she is no different than Dick Cheney. The same thing happened on weapons systems as Kerry got criticized for having similar views as Cheney.
The release the White House used on Cheney’s returns got the press to compare his taxable income (instead of overall income) to taxes paid. Maybe that should have been the gist of his item, that the GOP, through a limited news release, was able to get the media to downplay Cheney’s low taxes while the Democrats, through a large release of information made Heinz Kerry look like she didn’t pay much taxes.
The 2004 election has become so heated as it is a continuation of the 2000 election and it’s long way to November but it’s unfair just to criticize one party and not the other for doing the same thing.
Heinz Kerry paid a low rate of taxes because, as I understand it, much of her income came from in tax-exempt instruments, similar to Dick Cheney, which a co-worker acknowledged in the very last paragraph of his article.
Heinz Kerry's effective tax rate is similar to Vice President Cheney's. He and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported an income of $1.9 million in taxable and nontaxable income for 2003 and paid $253,067 in taxes, an effective tax rate of 13.3%.
Hey, I make A LOT less than Cheney and I would love to pay only 13.3% in federal taxes. Both Heinz Kerry and Cheney use tax-exempt vehicles to lower their taxes. Is that right? I don’t know, but in a highly political season I do know it is unfair to take a shot at the wife of a candidate while not taking a shot at the candidate’s opponent (running mate) who is doing the same thing.
Granted this is a minor point but Kerry’s campaign seems to be defined by the media by these types of comments. Just look at the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg recent election survey which showed that 56% believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times" and 46%, including a majority of independents, agree that "John Kerry wants to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon."
This leads to mischaracterization by people, as shown in In Ohio, Building a Political Echo by John Harris. Throwaway statements like Kurtz's can contribute to people’s views of Heinz Kerry without considering she is no different than Dick Cheney. The same thing happened on weapons systems as Kerry got criticized for having similar views as Cheney.
The release the White House used on Cheney’s returns got the press to compare his taxable income (instead of overall income) to taxes paid. Maybe that should have been the gist of his item, that the GOP, through a limited news release, was able to get the media to downplay Cheney’s low taxes while the Democrats, through a large release of information made Heinz Kerry look like she didn’t pay much taxes.
The 2004 election has become so heated as it is a continuation of the 2000 election and it’s long way to November but it’s unfair just to criticize one party and not the other for doing the same thing.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Who really needs to resign?
During the discussions today on the alleged abuses of Iraqi prisoners there was a suggestion that if the Congress doesn't get the answers it wants it may ask for resignations, including that of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield.
Throughout the Bush administration there has been a continual series of problems pop up, from lies about weapons of mass destructions, to disclosing the identity of a CIA operative, to harming the economy to benefit a small segment of society, yet the only one who has paid any price has been former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Yet reading his book makes one wonder if he got off lucky, getting to leave the insane asylum.
The person who seems to escape all judgment is George W. Bush and based on the scandals, perhaps he is the one who should resign. He was never elected and once the Supreme Court installed him, even though he lost by 500,000 votes, he has governed as if he won by 5 million votes, ignoring the public and thumbing his nose at the world.
It's time for Bush to go. And if he goes, Dick Cheney needs to go also. It's time to restore honor and dignity to the White House and even more important, it's important to restore America's honor. No longer should the world look with disgust and disdain at America.
The United States has always promoted ourselves as the "city on the hill," but the Bush Administrators is getting the world to think of us as the "thugs in the gutter."
My suggestion is that George Bush resigns and Dick Cheney names Al Gore as his Vice President and then Cheney resigns, fulfilling the wishes of the American public, as expressed at the voting booth in 2000.
Maybe then the world won't have such a poor view of America and it will give us a chance to make the world better AND safer.
Throughout the Bush administration there has been a continual series of problems pop up, from lies about weapons of mass destructions, to disclosing the identity of a CIA operative, to harming the economy to benefit a small segment of society, yet the only one who has paid any price has been former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Yet reading his book makes one wonder if he got off lucky, getting to leave the insane asylum.
The person who seems to escape all judgment is George W. Bush and based on the scandals, perhaps he is the one who should resign. He was never elected and once the Supreme Court installed him, even though he lost by 500,000 votes, he has governed as if he won by 5 million votes, ignoring the public and thumbing his nose at the world.
It's time for Bush to go. And if he goes, Dick Cheney needs to go also. It's time to restore honor and dignity to the White House and even more important, it's important to restore America's honor. No longer should the world look with disgust and disdain at America.
The United States has always promoted ourselves as the "city on the hill," but the Bush Administrators is getting the world to think of us as the "thugs in the gutter."
My suggestion is that George Bush resigns and Dick Cheney names Al Gore as his Vice President and then Cheney resigns, fulfilling the wishes of the American public, as expressed at the voting booth in 2000.
Maybe then the world won't have such a poor view of America and it will give us a chance to make the world better AND safer.
Monday, May 03, 2004
The question he wouldn't answer
During his recent testimony before the September 11 commission George W. Bush apparently answered all the questions that were put to him. Except one, but then it apparently wasn't put to him by the Commission.
The question, why did he and Dick Cheney appear before the commission together? Bush was asked about it at his press conference, at a press gathering after the commission, and his spokesman was also asked about it, yet no one was quite able to answer.
All Bush was able to say was "If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place." Previously at a press conference he said "because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."
Interesting possibly, but it doesn't answer why together. Oh, the comedians came up with suggested reasons (Bush is Cheney's puppet) and they wondered if Bush would show his independence by having Cheney drink a glass of water while Bush spoke.
But that's not to say Bush didn't take the meeting and the events of September 11 seriously. One commissioner, Jim Thompson, said "There was some laughter from time to time. The president is a bit of a tease."
In the end, the reason they testified together came out in a round about manner. In the press reports after the meeting it appears that Bush answered most of the questions and Cheney answered only a few. So if Bush didn't want Cheney, who was probably the leader behind the war, to testify, the way to accomplish that goal was to testify together. And with most of the commission wanting primarily to talk to Bush there would be little time or interest in talking to Cheney.
The panel met with former Gore for three hours in a private session. The also panel met with Clinton in private for three hours. So Gore and Clinton each testified for three hours a piece and didn't need to hold each other's hands, but then they weren't hiding anything.
The question, why did he and Dick Cheney appear before the commission together? Bush was asked about it at his press conference, at a press gathering after the commission, and his spokesman was also asked about it, yet no one was quite able to answer.
All Bush was able to say was "If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place." Previously at a press conference he said "because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."
Interesting possibly, but it doesn't answer why together. Oh, the comedians came up with suggested reasons (Bush is Cheney's puppet) and they wondered if Bush would show his independence by having Cheney drink a glass of water while Bush spoke.
But that's not to say Bush didn't take the meeting and the events of September 11 seriously. One commissioner, Jim Thompson, said "There was some laughter from time to time. The president is a bit of a tease."
In the end, the reason they testified together came out in a round about manner. In the press reports after the meeting it appears that Bush answered most of the questions and Cheney answered only a few. So if Bush didn't want Cheney, who was probably the leader behind the war, to testify, the way to accomplish that goal was to testify together. And with most of the commission wanting primarily to talk to Bush there would be little time or interest in talking to Cheney.
The panel met with former Gore for three hours in a private session. The also panel met with Clinton in private for three hours. So Gore and Clinton each testified for three hours a piece and didn't need to hold each other's hands, but then they weren't hiding anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)