Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Washington Post tells us who Bush's advisors want least

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 04:11 AM
Original message
The Washington Post tells us who Bush's advisors want least
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 04:19 AM by andym


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47276-2004Jan25_2.html

According to the Washington Post, Republicans close to the President's campaign most want Dean, though they worry about his money and least want Edwards calling him "Clinton without the scandal -- John Kennedy, from the South."

Here's a direct quote from the article:
"These Republicans said they think that Kerry would be harder to run against than Dean, but easier than Edwards, with Clark in the middle. "Running against a Massachusetts liberal can't be a bad thing for a Republican," the official said. "Dean would be fun, but Kerry's pretty good, too.""

If true this is good news for Edwards!
--------------------------------------

Here's what they mention about Clark:
"Clark's image is one of "confusion," a senior GOP official said, but acknowledged his military credentials would make it harder for Bush to draw an obvious contrast."

I think that is the key quote from the article: Clark confuses because he cuts across known political stereotypes and so far it is difficult for the average person to really understand him. This both hurts Clark in the primaries (eg, the continuing question of his Democratic credentials), but could very well help him and the party in the GE, especially if he gets to make an indelible impression. It is my personal belief that he could damage the Republican party by stealing some of their base back for the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
isbister Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. No matter who gets nominated
lets give the republicans more "fun" than they can handle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Re:lets give the republicans more "fun" than they can handle!
Agreed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaisyUCSB Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. no, we want to give them as much greif as possible
I've come to the conclusion in the last couple of days that this is about right, and Clark and Edwards would be the hardest for them to beat, followed by Kerry. And they would love Dean to be nominated.

By dad( a former professional strategist, now an advertising exec) has been saying this all along, but it's my dispostion to be critical of him sometimes.

But everything I've learned in polisci has confirmed what he has been saying, particularly about dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Clark and Edwards are the most telegenic as well
Clark and Edwards are the most telegenic (looks+ personality) as well, and TV is probably the most powerful influence in determining who wins.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaisyUCSB Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. definetly, but in different ways
Edwards, I know to me as a young woman, just comes off as the dream guy, the type you want to marry. Clark is like a big brother/ friend / neighbor type. You would like to hang out with him and have him help you out.

Edwards would have no problem with the independant woman vote, but Clark would do better than him with the independant male vote.

Clark just gives off that, "I could kick Bush's ass, litterally, he's a wuss" aura , and he would give that off to voters. And Edwards gives off that genuinness and decency and warm-heartedness that would translate to most voters, but possibly not to people who are resentful and jealous of that, and/or people who view that as being soft.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. A dream guy sounds like a dream candidate
Very interesting analysis, DaisyUCSB (Gaucho?). As an Edwards supporter I've wondered for months about your final thesis: too warm and therefore too soft for the truck driving type, the white males who consistently go 64% the wrong way.

I'm not sure they would stray to a Clark or any other Dem. Regardless, I think it's more than offset by Edwards' yank on young women, who might actually vote.

You did not mention Kerry, which I found numbingly revealing. I asked my younger sister for a one-sentence summation of each candidate after she watched the last debate. On Kerry: "Very impressive, like the car you consider but never buy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. very interesting, Daisy
I think Edwards has the same effect on older women too.

One thing that may help him with the tough guys is the same thing that may hurt him with others--his successful "underdog" career suing wrongdoers. In his stump speech people go wild when he tells them about facing boatloads of corporate lawyers "the best lawyers money can buy"--and then says, "and I beat them, and I beat them, and I beat them again." This same backbone was revealed in his response to Braun (almost too strong, in my opinion) and better, in his response to Brit Hume and friends the other night. His face changed into that of a formidable opponent when he saw he was being yanked around, and rather than show any anger, he was determined to change the focus from bs questions to the important themes that matter to voters, and did. I would not want to piss him off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. We Give them HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. No
We're gonna give em the truth, and they're gonna think it's hell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. In related news, W goes to Arkansas today...to speak to hospital people

and doctors...Must be because the "Joementum" CNN keeps reporting. Hmmmm...I'd like to see karl's secret little polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. He'll be speaking about capping medical malpractice suits... an issue...
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:16 AM by wyldwolf
at least one of the dems agrees with him on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I Would Rather Vote For A Puke Than For A Dem
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:25 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
who favors malpractice caps.... And I have never voted Puke in my life....


My mom had her leg amputated in 1996 because the "physician" fucked up.....


btw, which Dem favors malpractice caps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. Edwards argues against them here and proposes better solutions
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 08:31 AM by spooky3
"We need a real solution that frees doctors from crippling insurance costs -- without preventing the most badly injured victims from receiving the compensation they deserve."

..."For all his talk about frivolous lawsuits, Bush does nothing to address them. He's got it backward -- instead of cracking down on irresponsible behavior and baseless cases, he's targeting serious victims who win in court and are believed by juries."

"That real solution has three elements. Most important, we need to crack down on price gouging by the (insurance) industry. We also need aggressive action against frivolous lawsuits that don't belong in court -- not against the serious lawsuits that bring help to the most badly injured. And finally, we need to reduce the number of medical errors, many made by a very small fraction of the medical profession."

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/052203/opi_0522030031.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaisyUCSB Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. who?
thanks in advance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'll Bet It's Lieberman....
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. btw...
is that lieberman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. yeak Dean in Clark's home town must be because Clark is "done"
like FAUX says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edwards4President Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
42. He went to talk about putting caps on medical malpractice awards
another step in what the White House has called "Whack John Edwards" strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. can you say "manipulation"?
Didn't read the article. Didn't believe SH was an imminent threat. Very skeptical when Rs tell me "what they believe". *B* believes the "American People" "understand" his bizarre policies. Doesn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. Reverse Psychology.
The way I see it the one they say they are least afraid of is the one they are the most afraid of. They know that a large portion of voters are voting for who can unseat Bush, and by them constantly saying "we'd pound Dean into the ground", the fact of the matter is they are trying their hand at amateur reverse psychology.

While I believe that most of the candidates we have can soundly beat Bush, I believe Howard Dean (and it's one of the reasons I support him) can beat Bush in a landslide. Let me explain why.

One of the most important things for Bush is image. It's obvious that he can't run on his record without using the ultimate spin. Howard Dean however can match him where he is strong on his image and also run on his record. People see Bush as a likeable guy, the average Joe type figure. People also see Dean that way as well, but to an even greater extent. That is why the Republicans and Fox News have gone out of their way to smear Dean -- to perform character assassination.

Another reason I believe they fear Dean is because he isn't the gentleman fighter. He's unpredictable in important ways. For example in 2000 Bush's handlers and Karl Rove could coach Bush on how to handle Gore in the debates. Dean due to his straight talking attitude makes him some what unpredictable. They are afraid that Bush would get badly beaten in the debates. In fact, if Dean wins I firmly believe that Bush will try and weasel out of them. Dean will ask him the hard questions, and will put Bush on the defensive. That'll make him look apologetic. On top of that Bush doesn't think to good on his feet and as we know he isn't a good speaker.

Dean also has the ability to mobilize and energize the American people. There is nothing more terrifying to Bush than a mobilized electorate. This also translates into campaign donations, helping him match Bush's funding.

So as you can see just with these few strengths of Dean he is able to match Bush's strengths and in some cases come out stronger as well as being strong where Bush is weak. This of course, doesn't even count the fact that Dean will be able to shape the debate as he has done already in the Democratic Primary. IMO when people see Bush and Dean together on the stage the choice to the American people will be obvious. Bush will sink like a rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I agree wholeheartedly
Dr. Dean tells it like it is. The Republicans in the White House scream, but the Republicans around here who are sick of deficits and eroding of rights are looking at him carefully. My doctor, a lifelong Republican, applauds Dean's health care plan. Other folks in the local ABB group like the fact that he has actually balanced a budget. My Libertarian friends like that as well, and the fact that Dean says the civil unions thing is up to the individual states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. "...see Bush and Dean together on the same stage..."
With Dean at least 2 to 3 inches shorter. Don't underestimate the shock value and subliminal voting effect of that. In '88 my then-girlfriend howled when Dukakis shook Bush's hand in debate #1. "What is he, 5 feet tall?"

Kerry would tower over Bush, and Edwards basically eye-to-eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. Height won't matter as much...
because they won't be standing that close. Sure, it is one of those subliminal things, but so is the "butch" factor. Dean has Bush beat there. The whole rolling up your sleeves thing is really popular, it's a subliminal message "it's time to get down and dirty and get to work". I think I saw Clark trying to take a page out of that book the other day, I'm not completely sure however -- only saw a picture. (He was taking off his jacket.)

But regardless of what the Republicans are saying, I really don't think we should put any stock or value to their words. I mean, after all, they have a vested interest in seeing us lose.

But as for Kerry directly, I feel that he debates like Gore. He's too much of a gentleman, and this makes it easier for them to coach Bush on how to beat him. I don't think those few inches of height are going to make up for what is lacking in his personality. (That's just my personal opinion.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. They are afraid of them ALL, for different reasons, especially as polls
show *'s approval & would-you-vote-for-him ratings going down, down, down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. RE: Reverse Psychology
While it may be reverse psychology, I suspect it is what they really believe. Why, because they give reasons very consistent with past Republican campaigns: who can the paint as a liberal, etc.

I think they don't agree with your assessment of Dean's image as a regular guy versus Bush's. Because Dean has only entered the public's consciousness in the last few months they know they can paint him as a partisan, if not as "angry". I don't think Dean is generally viewed as more likable than Bush, at least not yet. He is viewed as spunky, which could make him a great favorite, a folk hero even, but it will be an uphill battle.

I agree, Dean is not a gentleman fighter, but he is not unpredictable. They know he'll come right after Bush, and they'll take appropriate countermeasures. They'll say he is engaging in unfair partisan attacks. Just look how they accused Clark of this at the last debate. It will be even easier for them to do this to Dean, because of his many anti-Bush statements.


Dean's mobilization of the American people. They do fear this because they know the value of money. This is mentioned in the article. One of the reasons I think it is what they really believe. They are less worried about grassroots as a way of influencing public opinion because it has not yet proven to be a critical factor in winning a presidential election, and Rove and his minions are great students of history.

So, I believe that they are telling the truth mostly. They want Dean, but are afraid of his ability to raise money. However, the real point it doesn't matter what they think. They may very well be wrong. And I think the strongest point in his favor is his creativity and his ability to chart a new course and take appropriate countermeasures as he did after the Iowa speech. Also there is a potential for a grassroots threat, if Dean can multiply his support 10x to around 6 million I think the grassroots may very well threaten the media for influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anaxamander Donating Member (550 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. One problem.
Dean will ask him the hard questions, and will put Bush on the defensive.

If they were to debate, Dean wouldn't be asking Bush anything. The moderators wouldn't allow it. Remember back to the 2000 town hall meeting... <dreamy flash-back dissolve>

Bush says something really stupid, calling affirmative action "quotas." Gore broke format and asked him a straight-up question: Do you support affirmative action as it exists today? (paraphrase) Bush stood there like an idiot in the headlights, shocked that Gore asked him a direct question, then looked sheepishly at the mod (I believe it was Lehrer), and the mod said something like, "Let's move on to the next question." Bush never had to answer. We finally got the answer on two consecutive MLK days; last year's and this year's.

Yes, Dean would obliterate Bush face to face and I'd love to see it, but there's no way the format will allow that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Bush said he supported...
"Affirmative Access", whatever the hell that is...

I like the fact that Dean is plainspoken, relatively consistent, and is willing and able to fight back. It's admirable, but I think he's easy to paint as a "liberal" (not that liberal is bad of course), though he's more moderate than many others.

Kerry faces a similar problem, being that he's from "Taxachussets", was Dukakis' Lt. gov, and is in favor of gun control...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
18. Once again
unnamed rethugs quoted in the washington post are credible and to be believed. After three years of whoredom we have to admit the media has no agenda and would never mislead the public in order to further it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snappy Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
20. Dean
I have heard Dean speak and answer questions about 5 times now. He is straight up and real. I believe that he is the only viable candidate that gets the closest to Democrat ideals. He is conservative fiscally and liberal socially. The Neo Fascist fear him the most. One can tell by the agressive attack they have launched.

Clark is getting a lot better at speakking and he is quite bright and personable.

Edwards is also bright and personable.

I would vote for any of these candidates.

Kerry is my least on the list because I feel that he is corporate although he keeps saying that he has not been funded by special interests. I think that the Repubs would want him to be the candidate because he is the least threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. AOL/Time Warner is not "special interests"?? .. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mobius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
25. They are most scared of Clark
thats obvious when you look at the polls. 2% on FOX , yeah right. Polls are used to make people who get thier only news from TV, vote for who they are being told is the guy everyone else is voting for. Pffft...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
26. Sorry, I don't buy it.
You want to know who they're really worried about? The guy who's name they never speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Right, they never speak of Clark
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 11:52 AM by Anti Bush
They are so afraid of him their voices will quiver and they are afraid of what will drop in their pants...to put it politely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Try again-
From the OP

Here's what they mention about Clark:
"Clark's image is one of "confusion," a senior GOP official said, but acknowledged his military credentials would make it harder for Bush to draw an obvious contrast."

Kucinich is the name you never hear from WH staff or the media. They flat won't say it, or if they do they say it with a sneer. Try looking at their eyes when they sneer at Kucinich sometime. It doesn't quite make it there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. From this article we can conclude that
From this article we can conclude that in theory they greatly fear Clark, but that so far the media effort against him has been able to contain him by creating a confusing image.

But Clark is learning fast, if he is able to get his message across in spite of media games, I have no doubt that he will be a huge threat to them. And I'm sure they know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
27. It isn't just the white house.
We have to think about who can help win the 5 Senate seats being contested in the fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
59millionmorons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
28. Checkmate--We lable Bush the liar that he is.
End of discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. Clark in the middle?
The Repub talking heads have been cheering for Edwards and smearing Clark. How could anyone believe such crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abigail147 Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
34. Please don't throw me into the briar patch.
Yeah, like we have any faith left in anything written in the Washington Post. I hardly think we will let Republicans write our ticket. Ignore them. Who honestly knows what their little minds are playing with at this point and who cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I was just thinking this was a "Br'er Rabbit " reverse psychology scam
...Hoping that they can fake the Dems into NOT nominating Dean because they're truly scared shitless of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Br'er rabbit-- could be
Br'er rabbit-- could be, but I don't buy it. See my post #35.

At this point in the primary season, their opinion about who they would like is a very minor factor (if at all). Frontrunner status and viable competitor status is everything. So it's safe for them to voice their opinions. If you compare what they say to what they did in past elections, it is consistent.

The key point though is that Dean may surprise them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Btw does the reverse order make sense?
The order given by the article is that they prefer:
dean > kerry > clark > edwards.

If it's reverse psychology the oposite order is what they really want:

Edwards > clark > Kerry > Dean.

Can anyone make sense of that order?

Can anyone guess at their
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Why character assasinate the person you want to face BEFORE he is picked?
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 08:09 PM by Woodstock
That throws all your analysis off.

You simply can't answer that, because the answer is not one you want to hear.

If a weak opponent landed in my lap, I'd shut my trap until he got picked. Not muster all the money and might of the corporate media to smear him beyond belief BEFORE he got picked. Dean was the frontrunner, and they pulled out all their guns and character assasinated him in a particularly brutal fashion. All they had to do was sit tight and wait for him to get picked, if they thought he'd be a cakewalk. No, the logic is simply not there to support what you (and they) say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. They only started the painting to be used against any Dem frontrunner
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 02:09 PM by andym
They only started the painting to be used against any Dem frontrunner.

He wasn't character assassinated...yet. He was just being set up for the full blown character assasination later. Which strong attack that they made would be potentially fatal to his candicacy? Only the scream, and that wasn't their work, that was the work of TV's lust for sensationalism.

Why? To oppose the Dem strategy of having a winner emerge quickly.
They want blood on any nominee, and the only way to get it is to bloody each frontrunner somewhat so that the other candidate's will attack.
And it works. Where did the strongest attacks against Dean come from in
Iowa? The republicans? No, from Gephardt. The media gleefully amplified them, because attack politics is what they think bring ratings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
48. The WP didn't carry the SOTU story above the fold. They know the problem.
The paper's ombudsman had to explain why in a seperate article.

That tell's you they are trying to cushion the toppling W statue.

(cue the Dean war cry)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
40. so suddenly we are supposed to believe they are telling the truth?
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 08:02 PM by Woodstock
It would be the first time

Sorry, but it defies logic. If they wanted to face Dean, they would have given him a free ride until he got the nomination. Instead, they launched the worst smear campaign I've seen in a long time.

And the right wing Washington Post can kiss my butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
43. Whaaaat? "Senior Officials? GOP? Bush*?!?!?! Known LIARS?!?!
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 08:44 PM by Melinda
These "Senior GOP Officials" (unnamed sources, of course) are the very same "unnamed sources who sold us

THE BIG LIE


CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT: The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post 07.25.03)

KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY: The administration “deep-sixed” a 2003 Treasury Department study that projected that “the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase” would be required to eliminate a projected $44.2 trillion budget deficit due to Bush’s tax cuts. The study found that the future health care and retirement costs of the baby boomers would overwhelm the treasury. “Sharp tax increases and massive spending cuts are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations.” The report added that the current financial challenge facing Washington is approximately “10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output, or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets.” (Hollings – Washington Post 06.19.03, Baker – Slate 07.11.03, Ferdinand - Utne Reader 05.2003, Malveaux & McCaughan - CNN.com 05.29.03)

SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT WITHIN THE ASHCROFT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: For over a year, the Justice Department has delayed the release of a KPMG Consulting report on diversity in DOJ. All that DOJ would release is a redacted version that deletes more than half the report including its summary. It is reported that the redacted portions include findings that DOJ faces “significant diversity issues” and that “minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment, and racial tensions as characteristics of the work climate.” (Congressman Conyers’

SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff entitled “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration” reveal examples such as the administration:

Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alternative environmental proposals;
using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly; including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health environmental consequences.

Read the full report Here

DELETED FORECAST OF TAX PLAN AS “JOB KILLER”: A Council of Economic Advisors’ forecast showing that the Bush “stimulus” plan would only create 170,000 jobs per year and would be a “job killer” after 2007 was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

DELETED FINDINGS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Prior to release of the EPA’s 2003 Environmental Overview, the White deleted a detailed chapter of global warming that found that global warming was due to human factors and that “climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment”. (CBS News.com 06.19.03)

CONCEALED ANALYSIS: An EPA assessment of Bush’s “Clear Skies” plan concealed the fact that a proposal by Senator Carper (D-Del.) would provide greater long term benefits at only slightly higher costs. (Gugliotta & Pianin – Washington Post 07.02.03)

KILLED LAYOFF REPORTS: The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly Mass Layoff Statistics report was killed by the administration in December 2002 and only noted in a footnote in the final report. (President Bush I did the same thing to hide his dismal performance.) After this was discovered by the Washington Post, the reports were reinstated. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

DELETED DECLINING MIN. WAGE: A Labor Department report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time (which would show the workers losing ground under Bush since there has been no increase since 1997) was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

FORCED SCIENTISTS TO ALTER FINDINGS ON KLAMATH RIVER WATER LEVELS: Karl Rove and Interior Secretary Norton forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for the survival of salmon in Oregon’s Klamath River to enable farms to use a bigger share of the river water. “As a result, more than 33,000 Chinook and Coho salmon died – the largest fish kill in American history.” (Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)

RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION: In an unprecedented move, the administration is requiring Democrats to submit all requests for information to Republican chairman of the relevant committee, thereby requiring Republican approval of any such requests. (Milbank – Washington Post 11.08.03)

BUSH LIES FROM A - Z

ABORTION

LIE: Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.

FACT: The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)

LIE: Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.

FACT: Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. (NOW Report – The Truth About George)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.

FACT: Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

BUSH’S MILITARY RECORD

LIE: After being transferred from the Texas Air National Guard “I was in on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.”

FACT: Bush was AWOL and never showed up at the Alabama Air National Guard, despite orders to report on specific days. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush returned to Houston after his temporary Alabama assignment and performed Guard duty at Ellington Air Force Base.

FACT: National Guard records indicate Bush had “not been observed” at the Houston base and the unit’s administrative officer has no recall of Bush returning and believed he was still in Alabama. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush applied to Harvard Business School in 1972 since “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I has trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”

FACT: Bush’s commitment was through May 1974 and his unit continued to fly F-102s through 1974. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush claimed that his Guard duty was not an attempt to avoid service in Vietnam since he volunteered for a program that rotated Guard pilots to Vietnam but he never was called.

FACT: Bush’s application included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or not want to volunteer for overseas duty. Bush checked the “no” box. (Democrats.com) In addition, despite scoring 25 out of a possible 100, Bush qualified for the single available pilot spot due to pressure from his father who was then in Congress. (GregPalast.com). See documentation in DOJ files detailing how strings were pulled for Bush at http://www.gregpalast.com and http://www.awolbush.com

BUSH’S RELIGIOUS DEVOTION

LIE: The Bush administration makes much of the fact of its commitment to Bible study; from the daily White House Bible study meetings to Don Evans recruiting Bush to give up the bottle for two years of “scriptural boot camp” with intensive study of Acts and other parts of the New Testament.

FACT: Bush’s religious devotion may be more show than substance. When Don Evans was asked whether he understood what Acts was about, he answered “no.” When candidate Bush was asked “what Bible passage did you read this morning”, he refused to answer saying “I think you’re trying to catch me as to whether or not I can remember where I was in the Bible”. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

LIE: After initially opposing McCain-Feingold, Bush jumped on the bandwagon once it was a fait accompli. In July 2002, he cut a deal with Senator McCain to appoint a pro-reform candidate (Ellen Weintraub) backed by McCain to the Federal Election Commission.

FACT: As Senator McCain plainly stated, while “the administration wanted to share in the widespread public approval of campaign finance reform by . . . signing the legislation . . . he’s cooperating behind the scenes with opponents of the law in Congress and on the Commission to weaken it as much as possible.” Bush sat on the Weintraub nomination until the Bush FEC issued regulations creating huge loopholes contrary to the express language of the law to permit (i) party committees to raise soft money through independent committees, (ii) federal officials to engage in fundraising, and (iii) permitting candidates to raise soft money through independent committees. In the words of Senator McCain, “hey flat-out broke their word.” (Arianna Online 12.09.02, Public Citizen Analysis of How FEC Is Undermining the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002)

CIVIL RIGHTS

LIE: When asked by David Frost about the demonstrators protesting his visit to the UK, Bush responded that “Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say”.

FACT: Under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring political demonstrations and other legal activities such as using the Internet for fundraising for the first time since the Nixon-Hoover era. In addition, after 9-11 then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Similarly, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled any criticism of the Patriot Act as aiding terrorists. (Daily Mis-Lead 11.24.03)

LIE: Attorney General Ashcroft told there “is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty”.

FACT: A September 2000 Justice Department report concluded there was racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty. (People For the American Way – Report on Attorney General Ashcroft’s First Year)

CLINTON BASHING

LIE: At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush claimed that if ‘called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”

FACT: This claim was contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Cohen and Bush’s own foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.

FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration were “ill-considered” and “ill-intentioned”.

FACT: Virtually all regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration had been developed over a period of years and are consistent with practices of prior administrations. (Washington Post 06.09.01).

DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS

(UPDATED!) LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”

FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)

In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”

FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03)

LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”

FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

EDUCATION

(UPDATED!) LIE: In signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush declared “We’re going to spend more on our schools and we’re going to spend it more wisely.”

FACT: Bush has under funded the No Child Left Behind program by $6 billion for FY2004 alone and by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03)

LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.

FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
(Including Black Out Lies)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that its regulation of mountaintop removal mining (i.e., leveling mountain peaks to extract coal) would improve environmental protections.

FACT: The Bush administration rejected a tougher Clinton administration proposal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the administration’s proposals “cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection.” The FWS also found the Bush proposals “belie four years of work and accumulated evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering for meaningful and measurable change.” In the two decades since the practice began, 724 miles of streams have been buried and 7 percent of the Appalachian forest cut down. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 01.07.04).

LIE: The Bush administration claims that its Health Forest Initiatives will “improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws restoring our nation’s forest”.

FACT: Congressional Research Service reported that the initiative may increase the risk of fire since “imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood product but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles” that contributes to such fires. The impetus behind the bill was not to prevent fires, but because the timber industry wanted to “increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: The administration claims that it has offered stringent new rules that will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

FACT: The administration’s new rules weaken Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions by requiring that plants reduce such emissions by only 1/3 of what is required by the Clean Air Act – reducing current emissions from 48 tons to 34 tons by 2010 instead of a reduction to 5 tons by year 2007. The rules also will result in 1.4 million tons more of air pollution. (Daily MisLead 12.05.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.

FACT: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: In 2002, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Holmstead told two Senate committees that the proposed rule changes gutting the Clean Air will not “have a negative impact on enforcement cases.” In response to questioning as to whether discussed the impact of the proposed rule changes with EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials, he replied, “Yes, that was one of the primary issues that was discussed. What I can say is, based on numerous meetings that I have had, which included staff attorneys from
FACT: At that time, EPA enforcement agents repeatedly told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard. EPA’s former chief of enforcement stated that the new rules “substantially complicate current litigation and act as a disincentive for companies to settle.” A General Accounting Report also concluded that the policy will hinder current enforcement actions (Pianin – Washington Post 10.10.03, Shogren – Los Angeles Times 10.24.03)

LIE: In promoting his New Source Review rule, which rewrites the Clean Air Act to permit older power plants to upgrade without installing pollution control devices, President Bush stood outside Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant claiming that existing EPA rules were too complicated to permit the plant to implement upgrades quickly.

FACT: The Edison Monroe plant, which is the 8th largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the US, had received the go-ahead from the EPA to proceed so long as it adhered to its stated intention of not increasing emissions as a result of the project. Under the new Bush rule, Edison Monroe can increase its emissions by 30,000 tons per year or 56 percent. (The Daily Mislead 09.17.03)

LIE: A 2003 EPA ad campaign targeted at Hispanics claimed the administrations “Clear Skies” initiative would “create purer air, better health and a more brilliant future for the United States.”

FACT: The Bush initiative would allow power plants to discharge additional levels of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen then currently permitted under the Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are associated with diseases such as emphysema and asthma that disproportionately afflict minority populations (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.20.03)

LIE: In 2001, Bush reversed a Clinton administration regulation reducing the arsenic levels in drinking levels from 50 ppb to 10 ppb claiming that the regulation was a last minute decision, with EPA administrator Todd-Whitman claiming the 10 ppb standard was not based on “the best available science.

FACT: The new EPA standard was the result of a decade of work. After the Bush administration reversed the 10 ppb, the National Academy of Sciences found that the 10 ppb standard was not only scientifically justified but that the standard could be less than 10 ppb. Under pressure, the Bush administration reinstated the 10 ppb standard even though the “best available science” suggested a lower standard was warranted. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was necessary to “secure America’s energy needs.”

FACT: A US Geological Survey concluded that drilling at ANWR would yield only approximately two years worth of oil consumption. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: President Bush stood before a Snake River dam and claimed credit for an increase in salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.

FACT: Experts stated that he increased salmon was due to weather and tidal patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The increase happened in spite of the Bush administration which has fallen short of court mandated targets to improve salmon habitats and water quality. Wild salmon are still below the levels necessary to ensure their long term survival. In the summer of 2003, the water levels for the Snake and Columbia River violated the targets 93% and 100% of the days, while also violating the Clean Water Act temperature standards 77.5% and 77.4%. (American Rivers 2003 Salmon Migration Report Card 10.03.03, New York Times 10.14.03, Geranios – AP 10.16.03, New York Times.)

LIE: In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from environmental groups asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new vehicles, claiming that EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

FACT: The claim that EPA lacks this authority is contradicted by case law and the opinion of two prior EPA general counsels. (Zitner, Polakovic and Shogren – Los Angeles Times 08.29.03, Lee – New York Times 08.29.03)

LIE: Vice President Cheney wrote to Congress requesting that they rein in the GAO’s investigation of his Energy Task Force meetings claiming “documents responsive to the inquiry concerning the cost associated with the work” have already been provided.

FACT: The GAO was forced to go to court to obtain the documents and lost. Cheney only produced 77 pages of useless documents which was not a complete production in response to the GAO’s request. Cheney stonewalled the GAO to hide the cozy deliberations the task force had with energy industry representatives. (Dean – Findlaw.com 08.29.03)

LIE: As a candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for not making a greater investment in the nation’s electricity grids and promised he would seek modernization of the grids.

FACT: While the Bush White House initially called for steps to modernize the electricity grids, it did nothing to implement them. Even worse, it allowed House Republicans to defeat Democratic efforts to spend $350 million on grid modernization and played an active role in derailing $2 billion in low-interest loans for expanding transmission capacity in the Pacific Northwest. (American Politics Journal 08.16.03; Allen – Washington Post 08.23.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.15.03)

LIE: Secretary Norton told Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population. She also reissued a scientific report as a two page paper that claimed drilling would not result in a negative impact to wildlife.

FACT: Secretary Norton “altered or omitted” key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists that contradicted her view. Biologists also found that drilling would harm must oxen, snow geese and polar-bear populations and would violate an international treaty protection bears, but these findings were suppressed. In the words of one Fish and Wildlife Service Official, “to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.” (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)

LIE: Vice President Cheney argued that ANWR drilling would only affect 2000, acres of Dulles Airport out of a total 19 million acres.

FACT: The 2000 acres Cheney cities are not contiguous. In fact, the oil is located in 35 discrete sites spread across the reserve and to extract oil it would be necessary to have roads and a pipeline covering 135 miles of wildlife habitat. (David Corn 4.13.01)

LIE: During the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to impose mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide.

FACT: Bush abandoned this pledge once elected. (CNN 03.13.01, Washington Post 03.25.02)

LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.

FACT: The National Academy of Science’s 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years” and that most of the warming “observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions. (Revkin – New York Times 01.12.03, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03.)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to exempt the military from environmental laws protecting endangered species and migratory birds on the grounds that compliance hampered military training.

FACT: A General Accounting Office report found little evidence to support this claim. (New York Times 07.09.02)

LIE: Bush claimed that conservation would be part of his national energy policy.

FACT: The White House spokesman indicates “that’s a big ‘no.’ The President believes that is an American way of life.” (ABC 05.07.01)

LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”

FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)

LIE: In 2002 Bush promised Nevada residents that “sound science, and not politics, must prevail” in the selection of a nuclear waste dump.

FACT: The Bush administration is proceeding with creating a nuclear waste dump in Nevada despite a GAO report that scientific testing to determine the facility’s viability would not be complete before 2006. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Christian Science Monitor 03.05.02)

LIE: Bush sought to justify oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest on the grounds that the people of Montana support it.

FACT: The plan is opposed by Montana residents, but supported by outside oil companies. (Missoula Independent 4.26.01)

LIE: During the tight 2002 South Dakota Senate race, Bush appeared at a South Dakotan ethanol plant and pledge that he supported ethanol “because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”

FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

ENRONGATE & SEC

LIE: Bush attempted to distance himself from Enron’s Kenneth Lay by claiming Lay supported his opponent (Governor Richards) in 1994 and he first got to know Lay only after elected.

FACT: Lay gave $37,500 to the Bush 1994 campaign and Lay claims he was “very close” to Bush at that time. (Slate 01.17.02) The Bush-Lay connection goes back much further, as in 1988, Bush lobbied the Argentinean government to award a contract to Enron. (Mother Jones March-April 2000)

LIE: Bush pledged to increase SEC enforcement in signing the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform legislation.

FACT: Bush’s FY2003 budget cuts SEC enforcement by $209 million. (Boston Globe 12.29.02)

LIE: In the Enron aftermath, Bush pledged “to do more to protect worker pensions”.

FACT: Four month’s later the Bush administration announced plans to permit employers to convert traditional pension plans into “cash balance” plans that lower benefits for long-serving workers. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

LIE: In 2001 the Bush administration promised to create a $700 million “Federal Compassion Fund”.

FACT: The President did not allocate a single penny for the fund in his 2001 budget. (Green – The American Prospect 07.30.01).

LIE: The Bush administration claims there exists a “widespread bias against faith-based organization’s (FBOs) in Federal service programs” and that complying with federal anti-discrimination employment laws in a major obstacle to FBO participation.

FACT: Recent studies have found no barriers to FBOs participation in government programs and “no hard evidence that hiring requirements are keeping
FOREIGN POLICY

LIE: During his African tour, President Bush touted legislation authorizing spending of $3 billion per year over five years to help fight AIDS in Africa and declared that the Congress “must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people on this continent of Africa.”

FACT: That same week, the White House asked for only $2 billion of the $3 billion authorized for FYE 2004. The Bush administration strongly opposed Congressional attempts to increase this amount. The Bush administration now plans to ask for only a small increase in spending for FYE 2005. (Bumiller – New York Times 08.26.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03, Global Aids Alliance 12.02.03)

LIE: On November 24, 2003, Bush boasted that we “put the Taliban out of business forever.” Similarly, in a September 2003 address to military personnel and families in California, Bush claimed “Afghanistan today is a friend of the United States of America. It is not a haven for America’s terrorist enemies.”

FACT: Bush’s November statement came after a series of US casualties in Afghanistan, a day after the Taliban attack Kabul’s most prominent hotel and on the very same day that the Afghan Foreign Minister desperately requested more help in fighting off the Taliban. The resurgent Taliban has forced the UN to remove it staff from parts of the country and led the German ambassador to warn that they threaten the country’s efforts to form a democratic government.

In addition, Afghanistan remains a haven for Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden who is believed to be in remote tribal areas near the Afghan-Pakistani border. Bush allowed Al Qaeda and bin Laden to regroup by withdrawing resources from Afghanistan for the Iraq war. (Corn – BushLies.com 9.13.03, Daily Mis-Lead 11.25.03)

LIE: In his October 28, 2003 press conference, Bush claimed that I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state."

FACT: On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities." (Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03)

LIE: During his Asian tour, President Bush told Indonesian news that Congress has dropped opposition to military training programs for Indonesia and that the US was ready to “go forward with” a new package of training programs.

FACT: Congressional opposition to the training programs has increased due to concerns that the Indonesian military may have been involved in the killing of two Americans in Papua. In addition, no new programs have been planned or approved. (Priest – The Washington Post 10.20.03)

LIE: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied tacitly endorsing the Venezuelan coup by stating that the coup was the “result of a message of the Venezuelan people.”

FACT: That is exactly what he said as the White House foolishly backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and was the only democracy in the western hemisphere that failed to condemn the coup. In addition, the Venezuela government claims to have a videotape of US officials discussing coup preparations with dissident soldiers. (Jonathan Chait 06.04.02, AP 10.22.03)

LIE: During the campaign, Bush promised Armenian groups that he would “ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” who were victims of a “genocidal campaign.”

FACT: The Bush administration has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. (Redding Record Searchlight 04.24.01)

LIE: Bush promised Jewish leaders “s soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to” Jerusalem.

FACT: Bush has suspended any action to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. (Washington Post 06.13.01)

LIE: President Bush denied blaming the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Middle East peace summit for the Palestinian intifada.

FACT: The day before issuing this denial, Bush stated “we’ve tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn’t all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area.” (Slate 4.18.02)

FOREIGN TRADE

LIE: During the campaign, Bush stated he opposed “import fees” and would “work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely”.

FACT: As President, Bush has imposed tariffs on steel and softwood lumber increasing costs to U.S. businesses and consumers and risking retaliatory sanctions. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Business Week 03.25.02)

HARKEN & HALLIBURTON

LIE: Bush claims that he “absolutely had no idea and would not have sold had I known."

FACT: Harken’s president warned board members of liquidity problems that would “drastically affect” operations two months before Bush’s stock sale. Harken’s lawyers also circulated a memo warning executives and directors not to sell any stock. Bush sold his stock for $4/share and it quickly dropped to $1.25. (San Francisco Chronicle 07.05.02, Guardian 11.02.02, Washington Monthly 12.02)

LIE: Bush claims to have cooperated with an SEC investigation of his Harken transactions.

FACT: Bush quashed evidence that Harken’s lawyers advised Bush and other executives against selling their stock and only provided it to the SEC after it had ended its investigation. (Guardian 11.02.02)

LIE: Bush signed an agreement in which he promised to hold the Harken stock at issue for six months.

FACT: Bush sold the Harken stock two months later. (The Dubya Report 07.18.02)

LIE: Bush claimed he timely filed the required SEC disclosure form after selling his Harken stock and asserted that the SEC must have lost it.

FACT: Bush did not file until eight months after the deadline for doing so. (Washington Post 07.04.02)

LIE: Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”

FACT: Senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)

HEALTH CARE & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

LIE: The Bush administration touted the Medicare prescription drug expansion as creating a modern Medicare system that provides “seniors with prescription drug benefits” and establishing Health Savings Account (“HSA’s) which will allow more Americans to save for health care needs and more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage.

FACT: The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees will lose their current drug coverage through their former employer since employers will drop such coverage once the Medicare benefit becomes available. The plan provides little relief for low income seniors and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 per year more than they currently spend. Finally, according to studies, premiums for employer-based coverage “could more than double” if HSA’s became widespread. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed that “all seniors” and not just poor would be covered under his plan.

FACT: Only seniors at or below 135% of the poverty level would be covered in full. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

LIE: President Bush has argued that medical malpractice reform and allowing small business to buy group insurance would make “a big difference” in reducing the 43.6 million Americans without health insurance.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending and even radical reform ‘would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums”. In addition, the CBO found that allowing small businesses to buy at group rates would only add coverage for 0.6 million people, as one-third of the nation’s uninsured are employed by large companies. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.23.03)

LIE: In banning research on embryonic stem cells, Bush claimed that the ban still would permit research on “more than 60” existing lines cells which “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.”

FACT: Only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown mouse cells making them inappropriate for treating people. (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration)

LIE: Bush claimed he “brought Republicans and Democrats together” to enact a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas.

FACT: Governor Bush vetoed such a bill in 1995 and when a veto proof majority passed it, Bush allowed it to become law but refused to sign it. (Washington Post 10.18.00, Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush bragged about a Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program extending coverage to 500,000 children passed while he was Governor.

FACT: Bush fought the program and tried to limit its reach to nearly half its current level. (Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush stressed the need to support children’s hospitals at a 2001 appearance at an Atlanta children’s hospital.

FACT: Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals by 15% and his FY2004 budget proposes to cut these grants by 30%. (Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

HOMELAND SECURITY

LIE: The White House claims that it has given first responders and public health systems “the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future attack.”

FACT: The White House now concedes that it has not provided enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. At the same time, the Clinton administration program to add 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because of funding cutbacks.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: After September 11th, President Bush promised to take “every possible measure” to guarantee the security of the homeland.

FACT: The Council on Foreign Relations task force headed by former Republican Senator Rudman (which in 2001 warned against a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil and called for the creation of a Homeland Security Department), concluded that the administration was spending only one-third of what is required “to adequately provide for emergency responders.” (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.02.03)

THE RECESSION

LIE: In his December 28th radio address, Bush claimed that the recession began before he took office.

FACT: The economy was still growing at the end of 2000. The recession began during the first year of the Bush administration. (Slate 12.30.02)

2003 STATE OF THE UNION LIES

LIE: Bush vowed to expand AmeriCorps by 50 percent.

FACT: Funding for AmeriCorps has been cut by $100 million forcing the program to cut volunteers from 2,400 to 575 and close 17 of its 20 programs. (Marshall – TomPaine.com 08.12.03)

LIE: “To date we have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda”.

FACT: Most Al Qaeda leaders remain at large, including Osama bin Laden and September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The US has captured and/or killed as many as 16 lower echelon Al Qaeda leaders. (AP 12.27.02, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: “We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen the global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.”

FACT: The Bush administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, rejected a Russian proposal to eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons (preferring instead that they be kept in “storage”), and blocked efforts to strengthen treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical weapons. (Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to “add to our security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorist, call Project Bioshield. The budget I will send will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments”.

FACT: Bush proposed no increase in funding for the National Institute of Health but this did not stop Bush from a photo-op visit the day his budget was released. (Milbank – Washington Post 02.07.03)

LIE: “We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.”

FACT: Bush’s budget calls for a record deficit of $307 billion deficit without even including the potential cost of a war with Iraq.

DECEPTION: “Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money” if Congress enacts Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.

FACT: Nearly one-third (31%) of all taxpayers, would receive nothing and 64 million taxpayers (nearly half (48%) would get less than $100. An average taxpayer (middle fifth of the income spectrum) will only receive $256 while those with incomes of more than $1 million will receive $90,200. Bush’s statement is technically correct, but very deceptive since it conveys the notion that 96 million Americans would receive something close to $1,100. (Citizens for Tax Justice, The New Republic – 02.10.03)

DECEPTION: One of Bush’s “compassionate” proposals in the speech was “a $450 initiative” to bring mentors to disadvantaged children and children of prisoners.

FACT: Bush’s 2004 budget allocates $50 million for mentoring prisoners’ children but cuts other mentoring programs by $64 million. (Milbank – Washington Post 02.07.03)

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/7/index.htm (Reprinted with full permission)

Want additional information about Bush* and the GOP's LIES?

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

What I wanna know is - Why should I believe ANYTHING that comes from the GOP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. They are liars
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 01:50 PM by andym
They are liars, so the only way to evaluate what they say is as follows:

Do there arguments make any sense in light of the political tactics that they have historically used? This article does contain reasoning that would be expected of such people. Assumptions that media control is more important than grassroots, fear of money, and the point that they intend to label candidates as liberals as a pejorative.

Now as to their actual ordering of the candidates. That is probably more up in the air, since they have arguments against all the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
49. That's silly. Sounds like a story planted by the Repubs.
The Repubs would annihilate Edwards. "Trial Lawyer" the reason your medical costs are so high. No leadership experience. Accomplished nothing in the few years he was in the senate. He voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He voted for No Child Left Behind.

It'd be over tout suite. And we'd have Bush for four more years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tryanhas Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
50. It's not good news for Edwards
It's DUH news.

How many times to we have to say that before people believe it.

I don't need for the Washington Post, or CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News to say something for me to realize it.

Don't nominate John Edwards and you are wasting your time in 2004, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC