Listen to Hugh Hewitt, 3-6 Pacific Time each weekday afternoon. See www.hughhewitt.com
The Kerry Files, Volume II
John Kerry believes his service in Vietnam inoculates him from Republican attacks on national security issues. But what about Kerry's activities after he came back from Vietnam?
by Hugh Hewitt
02/19/2004
IT TOOK A LOT OF DIGGING, but my producer Duane was able to find the audio from John Kerry's 1971 appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I played the entire 19 minutes for my radio audience on February 17, and the reaction via the phones and email was uniform: Disliking John Kerry for his actions and words of 33 years ago is not a rare thing, especially among Vietnam veterans and active duty military.
Does this reaction matter? In the California primary it might. According to the 2000 Census, there are 1,122,528 Vietnamese Americans, 447,032 of whom live in California. (Texas is home to 12 percent of Vietnamese Americans--134,961, to be exact.) This subgroup of the California electorate might find very interesting John Kerry's answer to a 1971 question from Senator George Aiken on the effects of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam. Here's Kerry:
"But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assasination or something else."
John Kerry obviously did not understand the plans of the Communists, as the numbers of the North's victims ranged far above his estimate of "perhaps 2,000, 3000." In fact, more than 130,000 took to the boats, a million more fled overland, and more than 750,000 were forced into "re-education camps." Next door in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror claimed 2,000,000
lives.
I wonder how John Kerry's antiwar record will play in Orange County, California's Little Saigon? Or to the state's approximately 70,000 Cambodian Americans? Kerry backers point to his youth when he made his statement to the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. But the massacre at Hue, when the communists executed thousands as they lost control of the city they had initially overrun in the Tet offensive, was well known and ought to have been understood by Kerry when he tossed off his estimate of likely victims of political terror if the United States cut and ran.
Among veterans and active duty military, the picture is more difficult to read, though Kerry's strength in this quarter has been overstated by a media all too ready to buy the "band of brothers" theatrics that Kerry has been staging at each campaign stop. Every time Kerry invokes his real heroism in Vietnam, a network announcer should intone the opinions of Paul Galanti, quoted in the February 17, 2004, Los Angeles Times:
"Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's [1971] speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war."
"During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"
"'The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield,' Galanti said, 'because thanks to these protestors they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington.'"
"He says Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy."
"Because he did, Galanti said, 'John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with.'"
"Now retired and living in Richmond, Virgian, Galanti, 64, refuses to cool his ire toward Kerry."
"'I don't plan to set it aside. I don't know anyone who does,' he said. 'The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.'"
YES, GALANTI IS A REPUBLICAN (he chaired John McCain's campaign in Virginia in 2000). But he speaks for many veterans. Unfortunately, though, tough charges like Galanti's are not likely to get much attention from an elite media more comfortable with the substance of Kerry's 1971 testimony--which is received wisdom on the left-- than with the recriminations that flow from Kerry's antiwar activities. It is obvious that the media, for all their digging into President Bush's air national guard service, are not as interested in Kerry's activities from the same period. To my knowledge, for example, mine is the only show to have played the audio from the 1971 hearing.
Because today's editors and producers don't much care about Kerry's actions in 1971, they can't imagine there are people who do care--much less report on them. Having labeled Kerry's antiwar radicalism as irrelevant, media elites ignore the opinions of a large and passionate segment of the population for whom Kerry's past matters a great deal.
Is this fair to Paul Galanti and his fellow Vietnam veterans who disagree with Kerry's actions when he returned from Vietnam? No, it isn't. But, then again, why should the media embrace fairness to them now, after three decades of distortion?
Hugh Hewitt is the host of the Hugh Hewitt show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, "In, But Not Of," has just been published by Thomas Nelson.
Monday, February 23, 2004
HERE'S THE FACTS, JACK
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot’s Letter to Senator John Kerry
Senator Kerry:
As the chairman of the President's campaign, we look forward to a debate with the eventual Democratic nominee on President Bush's steady leadership in these times of historic change. He has an optimistic vision and agenda that will move America forward toward greater prosperity, greater security, greater freedom and greater compassion. The American people are eager to hear how the War on Terror will be won, and how we can lead the United States to even greater prosperity here at home.
Steady leadership requires making principled decisions based on what is important to the American people – not advocating policies that would derail our economic recovery and weaken our ability to win the War on Terror.
As you know, our campaign has praised your military service to our nation. Our campaign does not condone any effort to impugn your patriotism. Your letter claims that supporters of our campaign questioned your service and patriotism. In fact, that simply wasn’t the case. Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on the issues now facing our country.
Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror. Your proposals and votes as a Senator should be known to the voters as they evaluate the candidates, including: your proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95), your 1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96), and your support for canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
As we debate these issues, I also ask you to elevate the remarkably negative tone of your campaign and your party over the past year. Your chief surrogate, Senator Edward Kennedy has said that the war to remove Saddam Hussein was “made up in Texas.” The chairman of your party has accused the President of being “AWOL.” During the first days of combat in Iraq, you yourself called for “regime change in the United States.” Of the $6.95 million that your campaign has spent on television ads, 74 percent of those ad dollars have funded a direct attack on the President.
We intend to run a campaign on the issues and each candidate's record on those issues. We hope that in the future you and your surrogates will do the same. Each candidate's record on defense, on national security, on the War on Terror and on the economy is central to his vision for the future and will be central to this debate.
We look forward to that debate with you or with any Democrat that emerges as your Party's nominee.
Sincerely,
Marc Racicot
Campaign Chairman
Bush Cheney '04
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot’s Letter to Senator John Kerry
Senator Kerry:
As the chairman of the President's campaign, we look forward to a debate with the eventual Democratic nominee on President Bush's steady leadership in these times of historic change. He has an optimistic vision and agenda that will move America forward toward greater prosperity, greater security, greater freedom and greater compassion. The American people are eager to hear how the War on Terror will be won, and how we can lead the United States to even greater prosperity here at home.
Steady leadership requires making principled decisions based on what is important to the American people – not advocating policies that would derail our economic recovery and weaken our ability to win the War on Terror.
As you know, our campaign has praised your military service to our nation. Our campaign does not condone any effort to impugn your patriotism. Your letter claims that supporters of our campaign questioned your service and patriotism. In fact, that simply wasn’t the case. Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on the issues now facing our country.
Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror. Your proposals and votes as a Senator should be known to the voters as they evaluate the candidates, including: your proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95), your 1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96), and your support for canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
As we debate these issues, I also ask you to elevate the remarkably negative tone of your campaign and your party over the past year. Your chief surrogate, Senator Edward Kennedy has said that the war to remove Saddam Hussein was “made up in Texas.” The chairman of your party has accused the President of being “AWOL.” During the first days of combat in Iraq, you yourself called for “regime change in the United States.” Of the $6.95 million that your campaign has spent on television ads, 74 percent of those ad dollars have funded a direct attack on the President.
We intend to run a campaign on the issues and each candidate's record on those issues. We hope that in the future you and your surrogates will do the same. Each candidate's record on defense, on national security, on the War on Terror and on the economy is central to his vision for the future and will be central to this debate.
We look forward to that debate with you or with any Democrat that emerges as your Party's nominee.
Sincerely,
Marc Racicot
Campaign Chairman
Bush Cheney '04
This is the so-called "launch message" of the Bush campaign. I have highlighted the key sections.
Monday, February 23, 2004
President Bush Discusses Nation's Agenda with Governors
State Dining Room
The White House
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's it? Okay. (Laughter.) Always love to get a short introduction. Hope you all cleaned the room up after last night. (Laughter.) Laura and I really enjoyed that. Thanks for coming. It was a lot of fun. (Applause.) Everybody seemed pretty well behaved. I don't know about Coach, but, yes, I know, it's hard to take him out.
I'm glad members of my Cabinet are here. Obviously, the more communications we can have about issues that worry you, the easier it is for us to solve problems. Governors are problem-solvers. And so is the President. Our jobs are to identify problems, and deal with them. And the best way to do so is in the spirit of cooperation.
That's sometimes hard in Washington, I readily concede. This is not a town that thrives upon cooperation, like most state capitals. But we'll continue to work hard to help you, because by helping our governors, we really help our people. That's the job of a President.
Yesterday in my toast, I said the war on terror goes on, and it does. I wish I could report otherwise, but that's not a true assessment of the world. We are chasing al Qaeda; we're dealing with rogue nations and proliferation. But the war still goes on. And as a fellow Commander-in-Chief, it's important for you to know that. And, therefore, it's essential that we continue to cooperate on matters of homeland security.
We'll have a robust budget in front of the Congress, and we expect it to be passed. Tom, evidently, has met with you all to talk about ways to make sure that the flow of money is expedited from the federal government to the state governments, to the local governments. And that's essential. And I appreciate that he has convened a conference of governors and mayors and local responders to make sure that we all do our jobs well. That's the purpose of the meeting.
I will tell you, the response to emergency and/or threats has been, from my perspective, really good. Governor Easley and Governor Warner of Virginia had to suffer through a devastating act of nature. But the response between the federal government and the state governments and the local governments was more seamless than ever. And I want to thank the governors and their offices of emergency preparedness.
Ridge is doing a good job, from my perspective. He's taken on a tough assignment. I see Governor Rendell is nodding his head. You trained him well. But he's taken on a tough assignment, to bring together diverse agencies under one roof and have it function smoothly, not only here in Washington, but in the field. And we'll continue to work and make sure that the Office of Homeland Security enables you to do your job better.
There's talk about the Patriot Act. Let me just tell you it needs to be renewed, and I'll tell you why. Prior to the Patriot Act, the CIA and the FBI couldn't communicate on matters of intelligence. And yet, we're fighting a war against individuals and killers that can hide in our communities, hide in dark parts of the world, hide in caves, and we need to be able to communicate. It makes no sense not to have the tools available to chase these terrorists down. So you'll see me actively pursuing renewal of the Patriot Act, so not only can we do our job, the federal government, but people in the state and local level can, too -- do so, as well.
The joint terrorism task force in your community require cooperation -- interagency cooperation. It's essential they have the tools necessary to find these people and bring them to justice. That is our solemn call in this, the beginning of the 21st century. After all, the most important job of anybody in office is to protect the people of our country, which means we got to stay on the offense when it comes to dealing with al Qaeda. And we got to be wise about dealing with threats before they become imminent or fully materialize. That's the -- to me, those are the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. It changed the calculation as to how you analyze and deal with threat.
We are on the hunt for al Qaeda. You just got to know that there's a lot of brave people searching them out. And I view the hunt for al Qaeda as part of the war on terror. And it requires all assets, intelligence assets and military assets, to chase them down and bring them to justice. And we're doing pretty good -- better than pretty good. If al Qaeda were a corporation, middle management has been brought to justice. And that's important for you to know. We can take comfort about the progress we're making. But we've got a lot more to do. And so we'll just stay on the hunt here in -- out of Washington, D.C.
As you know, I laid out some doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. And it's very important for the administration to follow through when they say something. It makes diplomacy a little easier when your word means something. And in al Qaeda, our word meant something. The Taliban is no longer in power. We've still got work there to do, but the country is now more free than ever before.
You ought to see the movie, "Osama." It's an interesting movie. It talks about what it was like to be a woman in Afghanistan during the Taliban era. It will give you a perspective about what it means to be a governor in a nation which is willing to sacrifice not only for its own security, but for the freedom of others. When you hear talk about being a liberator, that movie will bring home what it means to be liberated from the clutches of barbarism.
A lot of my foreign policy is driven by the fact that I truly believe that freedom is a gift from the Almighty to every person, and that America has a responsibility to take a lead in the world, to help people be free. And we're making progress in Afghanistan. We really are. Just look at the fact that young girls are now going to school for the first time in a long period of time.
Secretary Rumsfeld's wife, and Karen Hughes, and Margaret Spellings, who is my Domestic Policy Advisor -- they're on a plane right now heading to Afghanistan to continue the progress toward a more free society.
And in Iraq, obviously, I made a tough choice. But my attitude is, is that the lessons of September the 11th mean that we must be clear-eyed and realistic and deal with threats before they fully materialize. I looked at the intelligence and came to the conclusion that Saddam was a threat. The Congress looked at the same intelligence, and it came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat. My predecessor and his administration looked at the same intelligence and concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that's why Congress passed a -- resolved to remove Saddam from power, that regime change was a -- was policy for the government.
And there's a reason why not only does the intelligence say that he was a threat, his actions said he was a threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He hid weapons of mass destruction from inspectors. In other words, he wouldn't be open.
The United Nations Security Council, at my request, took a look at the issue one last time, and unanimously voted to have Saddam reveal, disclose, and destroy weapons of mass destruction and/or weapons of mass destruction programs and, if not, face serious consequences.
September the 11th affected my way of thinking when it came to the security of the country. We saw a danger, and so I gave him an ultimatum -- the world really gave him an ultimatum. And he refused. And rather than take the word of a madman whose actions had proven unworthy of leadership, we acted, and we removed him. And the world is better off for it, in my judgment. (Applause.)
It is essential we succeed in Iraq, just like it's essential we succeed in Afghanistan. A free Iraq is an historic opportunity to help change the world. And I want to thank the governors for going to Iraq. I want to thank you for taking the risk to go and to say thanks to the troops on the ground, whether they be your Guard's troops or reservists, or whether they be active duty personnel.
We can debate all day long about whether or not I made the right decision, but what is not in question is the bravery and skill of our troops. And I want to thank you for your support -- support for people who are serving a cause greater than themselves; people who are willing to sacrifice not only for our own security, but people who when, by and large, when you talk to them, understand that the long-term consequences of a free Iraq will make us more secure.
Some of the stories from Iraq are amazing stories. Just ask your governors to account for what they saw and heard. It's important for you to know that we fully recognize there needs to be certainty in troop rotation, that we're asking families and troops to go serve the country and there needs to be a certain time frame. It's important for you to know that our troops will get the best equipment and best possible training.
I went to Fort Polk in Louisiana, and they showed me some of the training missions that our Guard units are going through, particularly the Guard unit out of Arkansas -- Huckabee. And the training is very good. It is intense, it is realistic, it is preparing these souls for duty. And, again, I want to thank you, as Commander-in-Chief, for understanding the mission.
See, the danger is, is that the Iraqi people think we'll cut and run; that's what they're worried about. I think if you ask the governors, they'll tell you they heard that same sentiment. We're not going to cut and run. We've got to make it clear we're there to succeed, and we will.
And they're making progress on the ground. I don't think it's all that bad that people are arguing about the nature of government. It's a pretty good sign. We argue about government all the time here. As a matter of fact, later on this year, we'll be having a pretty good argument about government. (Laughter.) But it's a good sign in Iraq. That's part of the process of heading for a society in which minority rights are recognized and human dignity is paramount.
Again, I'll repeat to you, I view this as an historic moment. I truly believe that a free Iraq is going to change the world for the better.
I had a dinner with Koizumi -- Prime Minister Koizumi in Tokyo. And we were eating Kobe beef, which is quite good, I might add. And we were talking about, of all things, North Korea, how best, as friends, to deal with North Korea. It dawned on me in the midst of that conversation, what would it have been like if we'd blown the peace with Japan. Would I have ever -- or any American President ever been sitting down with a Prime Minister talking about how to deal with the current threat, for the common good?
During the course of the conversation, I also realized that 50 years from now, when we get it right in Iraq, some American President will be sitting down with the leader of Iraq, talking about the common good, how to maintain the peace, how to create a more hopeful society. This is an historic opportunity, and this country will not flinch from the hard duty ahead of us.
At home, obviously, the economy and jobs are on my mind. I know they're on yours, as well. I'm pleased that the economy is growing -- 5.6 percent unemployment is a good national number. It's not good enough, but it's a good number, particularly since what we've been through, which has been a recession, an emergency, and corporate scandal, and war. And yet, the economy is growing, which is a good sign.
My view of government is to create an environment that is good for the entrepreneur; that encourages capital formation, particularly among small businesses. The tax relief we passed not only has put more money into the pockets of individuals, which I believe is good when you're trying to come out of a recession, but it also helps small businesses. Remember, most small businesses in your states are sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations. That's a fact. And when you cut income taxes, all taxes -- not a few, but all -- you're providing additional capital for subchapter S and sole proprietorships.
And if you're worried about job growth, it seems like it makes sense to give a little fuel to those who create jobs, the small business sector. So I'll vigorously defend the permanency of the tax cuts, not only for the sake of the economy, but for the sake of the entrepreneurial spirit, which is important in your states. It's important that people have got incentive to create jobs. Not only is it good for those people looking for work, it's good for the soul of the country for people to own something. We want us to be an ownership society in America.
There's more to do. We need an energy bill. We'll try to get one out of the Congress here. We need tort reform, it seems like to me. We need tort reform for class action; we need tort reform for asbestos; we need medical -- national medical liability reform in order to help control the rising cost of health care. Associated health care plans -- I hope you support these. These are opportunities for small businesses to pool risk in order to better control the cost of health. That's where the focus ought to be, how best to address the rising cost of health care. And this administration will continue to do so for the sake of jobs -- less regulations, obviously.
We won't back off our desire to open up markets for U.S. products -- farm products, ranch products, manufacturing products. It's pretty easy to trade into America. What's hard is for Americans to trade into other countries. And so it's important for the administration to continue to focus on trade and the benefits of trade here at home. And I mentioned the permanency of the tax cuts. It's very important for people who are planning for the future to have -- wonder about tax relief, whether it will be there. It's essential that there be certainty in the tax code.
We also recognize that these are changing times, the economy is changing, people go to work in different ways. And therefore, the policy ought to reflect that. The policy ought to reflect it through health care, where people have got more control over their health care decisions. Health savings accounts are one such way to do that.
The education system is vital. However, as the economy changes, people have got to be prepared to work in the changing economy. I'm going to vigorously defend No Child Left Behind because I know in my heart of hearts it's the absolute right role for the federal government -- to provide money, but insist upon results -- to say for the first time, would you please show us whether or not the children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. And if not, there will be special help to make sure they do. And if so, there will be ample praise. You design the accountability.
I know Rod talked to you about flexibility and how we get to the numbers, which is good. Accountability isn't meant to punish anybody. Accountability systems are meant to help determine whether curriculum are working, whether or not the strategy is working, and whether or not people are being just shuffled through from grade to grade without concern as to whether or not they can read or write. That's what this is all about. And I look forward to working with you to make sure the system works well. And I just can assure you this is -- there will be a vigorous defense of what I think is the one of the most constructive reforms in education policy at the federal government ever. (Applause.)
We have put out some policies to encourage reading in math, a program for high school students who are falling behind; additional money for advanced placement for low-income schools; increasing -- larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college by taking more rigorous courses. And, of course, I've always felt that the community college system provides a great opportunity for job training. Elaine will talk about that to you. Community colleges are available, affordable; they're flexible. We don't need to be training 500 hairdressers for 50 jobs which exist. The system ought to be designed toward meeting the demand of your employers. And a good community college system will make it much easier for governors and mayors to attract jobs to your communities. And I know a lot of you have used your community college system wisely.
Governor Napolitano -- I was in Arizona, went to the Mesa Community College System. It's a fine community college system. One of the interesting stories there, a lady who worked for 15 years as a graphic design artist, and she went to the community college system to help get the skills necessary to become a viable employee in the high-tech world. And her starting pay -- I believe it's called Cable One -- was higher than her 15th year as a graphic artist, because she took time, with government help -- I think a Pell grant in her case -- to become reeducated. So we've got money in our budget to help invigorate the community college system.
Another issue that I think we need to work on -- I know we need to work on is welfare. They need to reauthorize welfare. I hope the Congress will reauthorize welfare. Welfare reform had worked. You need to have certainty as you plan your -- on how to help people become less dependent on government, and we need a welfare reform bill. And we'll push it, here in Washington.
And finally, the faith-based initiative -- I want to talk a little bit about that. My attitude is, if a program works, let's use it. If a program can help save somebody's life, it seems like to me that program ought to be allowed to access monies aimed at helping people help themselves. And yet, that's not the way it was here in Washington. Faith-based programs were discriminated against. There was a process argument. And governors are results-oriented people, and so am I. And it seems like to me, you ought have the flexibility, and people at your grass-roots level ought to have the flexibility to access taxpayers' money if they're able to meet common objectives.
Now -- and so -- well, I couldn't get the bill out of the Congress, so I just signed an executive order, which opened up federal grant money to faith-based groups, on a competitive basis.
We're also making sure that our bureaucracies don't say to faith-based groups, you can't be a faith-based group. If faith is part of being an effective program, it doesn't make sense to say to somebody, you can't practice your faith. And so we recognize here in Washington faith-based programs are a two-way street -- one, there's a federal interface, and two, that sometimes can be frightening to people of faith. And by the way, I'm talking about all faiths. This isn't just a single faith; it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim faiths, all -- which exist because they've heard the universal admonition to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself.
And so I want to applaud those of you who have set up faith-based offices, and encourage you, if you haven't, to do so. There is a lot of federal money available to effective providers of social services. One such program is going to be the $100-million drug treatment programs, where now vouchers can be issued to people where they can choose where they go, whether it be kind of a clinical program or a program designed to help change somebody's heart. By the way, if your heart gets changed, it's a lot easier to quit drinking. I know.
And so it's -- this is an opportunity that I think is a viable opportunity for governors and states to really help people. And that's why we're in office, isn't it, is to do the best -- (applause.)
So regardless of your party, I hope you have this sense of optimism I do. You see the people in your states. We are lucky to be leaders in such a fabulous country, we really are -- good, honest, decent, honorable people. We've overcome a lot. There's more to do. There's a lot we can do together.
So thanks for coming by the White House. That's my pledge. This is going to be a year in which a lot of people are probably going to think nothing can done, right, because we're all out campaigning. Well, that's not my attitude. I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue. But my pledge to you is, we'll continue to work with you. You've got what you -- you've got to do what you've got to do in your home states, in terms of politics. But surely we can shuffle that aside sometimes, and focus on our people; do what you were elected to do and what I was elected to do to make this country hopeful.
So thanks for coming by. I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions.
Monday, February 23, 2004
President Bush Discusses Nation's Agenda with Governors
State Dining Room
The White House
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's it? Okay. (Laughter.) Always love to get a short introduction. Hope you all cleaned the room up after last night. (Laughter.) Laura and I really enjoyed that. Thanks for coming. It was a lot of fun. (Applause.) Everybody seemed pretty well behaved. I don't know about Coach, but, yes, I know, it's hard to take him out.
I'm glad members of my Cabinet are here. Obviously, the more communications we can have about issues that worry you, the easier it is for us to solve problems. Governors are problem-solvers. And so is the President. Our jobs are to identify problems, and deal with them. And the best way to do so is in the spirit of cooperation.
That's sometimes hard in Washington, I readily concede. This is not a town that thrives upon cooperation, like most state capitals. But we'll continue to work hard to help you, because by helping our governors, we really help our people. That's the job of a President.
Yesterday in my toast, I said the war on terror goes on, and it does. I wish I could report otherwise, but that's not a true assessment of the world. We are chasing al Qaeda; we're dealing with rogue nations and proliferation. But the war still goes on. And as a fellow Commander-in-Chief, it's important for you to know that. And, therefore, it's essential that we continue to cooperate on matters of homeland security.
We'll have a robust budget in front of the Congress, and we expect it to be passed. Tom, evidently, has met with you all to talk about ways to make sure that the flow of money is expedited from the federal government to the state governments, to the local governments. And that's essential. And I appreciate that he has convened a conference of governors and mayors and local responders to make sure that we all do our jobs well. That's the purpose of the meeting.
I will tell you, the response to emergency and/or threats has been, from my perspective, really good. Governor Easley and Governor Warner of Virginia had to suffer through a devastating act of nature. But the response between the federal government and the state governments and the local governments was more seamless than ever. And I want to thank the governors and their offices of emergency preparedness.
Ridge is doing a good job, from my perspective. He's taken on a tough assignment. I see Governor Rendell is nodding his head. You trained him well. But he's taken on a tough assignment, to bring together diverse agencies under one roof and have it function smoothly, not only here in Washington, but in the field. And we'll continue to work and make sure that the Office of Homeland Security enables you to do your job better.
There's talk about the Patriot Act. Let me just tell you it needs to be renewed, and I'll tell you why. Prior to the Patriot Act, the CIA and the FBI couldn't communicate on matters of intelligence. And yet, we're fighting a war against individuals and killers that can hide in our communities, hide in dark parts of the world, hide in caves, and we need to be able to communicate. It makes no sense not to have the tools available to chase these terrorists down. So you'll see me actively pursuing renewal of the Patriot Act, so not only can we do our job, the federal government, but people in the state and local level can, too -- do so, as well.
The joint terrorism task force in your community require cooperation -- interagency cooperation. It's essential they have the tools necessary to find these people and bring them to justice. That is our solemn call in this, the beginning of the 21st century. After all, the most important job of anybody in office is to protect the people of our country, which means we got to stay on the offense when it comes to dealing with al Qaeda. And we got to be wise about dealing with threats before they become imminent or fully materialize. That's the -- to me, those are the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. It changed the calculation as to how you analyze and deal with threat.
We are on the hunt for al Qaeda. You just got to know that there's a lot of brave people searching them out. And I view the hunt for al Qaeda as part of the war on terror. And it requires all assets, intelligence assets and military assets, to chase them down and bring them to justice. And we're doing pretty good -- better than pretty good. If al Qaeda were a corporation, middle management has been brought to justice. And that's important for you to know. We can take comfort about the progress we're making. But we've got a lot more to do. And so we'll just stay on the hunt here in -- out of Washington, D.C.
As you know, I laid out some doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. And it's very important for the administration to follow through when they say something. It makes diplomacy a little easier when your word means something. And in al Qaeda, our word meant something. The Taliban is no longer in power. We've still got work there to do, but the country is now more free than ever before.
You ought to see the movie, "Osama." It's an interesting movie. It talks about what it was like to be a woman in Afghanistan during the Taliban era. It will give you a perspective about what it means to be a governor in a nation which is willing to sacrifice not only for its own security, but for the freedom of others. When you hear talk about being a liberator, that movie will bring home what it means to be liberated from the clutches of barbarism.
A lot of my foreign policy is driven by the fact that I truly believe that freedom is a gift from the Almighty to every person, and that America has a responsibility to take a lead in the world, to help people be free. And we're making progress in Afghanistan. We really are. Just look at the fact that young girls are now going to school for the first time in a long period of time.
Secretary Rumsfeld's wife, and Karen Hughes, and Margaret Spellings, who is my Domestic Policy Advisor -- they're on a plane right now heading to Afghanistan to continue the progress toward a more free society.
And in Iraq, obviously, I made a tough choice. But my attitude is, is that the lessons of September the 11th mean that we must be clear-eyed and realistic and deal with threats before they fully materialize. I looked at the intelligence and came to the conclusion that Saddam was a threat. The Congress looked at the same intelligence, and it came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat. My predecessor and his administration looked at the same intelligence and concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that's why Congress passed a -- resolved to remove Saddam from power, that regime change was a -- was policy for the government.
And there's a reason why not only does the intelligence say that he was a threat, his actions said he was a threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He hid weapons of mass destruction from inspectors. In other words, he wouldn't be open.
The United Nations Security Council, at my request, took a look at the issue one last time, and unanimously voted to have Saddam reveal, disclose, and destroy weapons of mass destruction and/or weapons of mass destruction programs and, if not, face serious consequences.
September the 11th affected my way of thinking when it came to the security of the country. We saw a danger, and so I gave him an ultimatum -- the world really gave him an ultimatum. And he refused. And rather than take the word of a madman whose actions had proven unworthy of leadership, we acted, and we removed him. And the world is better off for it, in my judgment. (Applause.)
It is essential we succeed in Iraq, just like it's essential we succeed in Afghanistan. A free Iraq is an historic opportunity to help change the world. And I want to thank the governors for going to Iraq. I want to thank you for taking the risk to go and to say thanks to the troops on the ground, whether they be your Guard's troops or reservists, or whether they be active duty personnel.
We can debate all day long about whether or not I made the right decision, but what is not in question is the bravery and skill of our troops. And I want to thank you for your support -- support for people who are serving a cause greater than themselves; people who are willing to sacrifice not only for our own security, but people who when, by and large, when you talk to them, understand that the long-term consequences of a free Iraq will make us more secure.
Some of the stories from Iraq are amazing stories. Just ask your governors to account for what they saw and heard. It's important for you to know that we fully recognize there needs to be certainty in troop rotation, that we're asking families and troops to go serve the country and there needs to be a certain time frame. It's important for you to know that our troops will get the best equipment and best possible training.
I went to Fort Polk in Louisiana, and they showed me some of the training missions that our Guard units are going through, particularly the Guard unit out of Arkansas -- Huckabee. And the training is very good. It is intense, it is realistic, it is preparing these souls for duty. And, again, I want to thank you, as Commander-in-Chief, for understanding the mission.
See, the danger is, is that the Iraqi people think we'll cut and run; that's what they're worried about. I think if you ask the governors, they'll tell you they heard that same sentiment. We're not going to cut and run. We've got to make it clear we're there to succeed, and we will.
And they're making progress on the ground. I don't think it's all that bad that people are arguing about the nature of government. It's a pretty good sign. We argue about government all the time here. As a matter of fact, later on this year, we'll be having a pretty good argument about government. (Laughter.) But it's a good sign in Iraq. That's part of the process of heading for a society in which minority rights are recognized and human dignity is paramount.
Again, I'll repeat to you, I view this as an historic moment. I truly believe that a free Iraq is going to change the world for the better.
I had a dinner with Koizumi -- Prime Minister Koizumi in Tokyo. And we were eating Kobe beef, which is quite good, I might add. And we were talking about, of all things, North Korea, how best, as friends, to deal with North Korea. It dawned on me in the midst of that conversation, what would it have been like if we'd blown the peace with Japan. Would I have ever -- or any American President ever been sitting down with a Prime Minister talking about how to deal with the current threat, for the common good?
During the course of the conversation, I also realized that 50 years from now, when we get it right in Iraq, some American President will be sitting down with the leader of Iraq, talking about the common good, how to maintain the peace, how to create a more hopeful society. This is an historic opportunity, and this country will not flinch from the hard duty ahead of us.
At home, obviously, the economy and jobs are on my mind. I know they're on yours, as well. I'm pleased that the economy is growing -- 5.6 percent unemployment is a good national number. It's not good enough, but it's a good number, particularly since what we've been through, which has been a recession, an emergency, and corporate scandal, and war. And yet, the economy is growing, which is a good sign.
My view of government is to create an environment that is good for the entrepreneur; that encourages capital formation, particularly among small businesses. The tax relief we passed not only has put more money into the pockets of individuals, which I believe is good when you're trying to come out of a recession, but it also helps small businesses. Remember, most small businesses in your states are sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations. That's a fact. And when you cut income taxes, all taxes -- not a few, but all -- you're providing additional capital for subchapter S and sole proprietorships.
And if you're worried about job growth, it seems like it makes sense to give a little fuel to those who create jobs, the small business sector. So I'll vigorously defend the permanency of the tax cuts, not only for the sake of the economy, but for the sake of the entrepreneurial spirit, which is important in your states. It's important that people have got incentive to create jobs. Not only is it good for those people looking for work, it's good for the soul of the country for people to own something. We want us to be an ownership society in America.
There's more to do. We need an energy bill. We'll try to get one out of the Congress here. We need tort reform, it seems like to me. We need tort reform for class action; we need tort reform for asbestos; we need medical -- national medical liability reform in order to help control the rising cost of health care. Associated health care plans -- I hope you support these. These are opportunities for small businesses to pool risk in order to better control the cost of health. That's where the focus ought to be, how best to address the rising cost of health care. And this administration will continue to do so for the sake of jobs -- less regulations, obviously.
We won't back off our desire to open up markets for U.S. products -- farm products, ranch products, manufacturing products. It's pretty easy to trade into America. What's hard is for Americans to trade into other countries. And so it's important for the administration to continue to focus on trade and the benefits of trade here at home. And I mentioned the permanency of the tax cuts. It's very important for people who are planning for the future to have -- wonder about tax relief, whether it will be there. It's essential that there be certainty in the tax code.
We also recognize that these are changing times, the economy is changing, people go to work in different ways. And therefore, the policy ought to reflect that. The policy ought to reflect it through health care, where people have got more control over their health care decisions. Health savings accounts are one such way to do that.
The education system is vital. However, as the economy changes, people have got to be prepared to work in the changing economy. I'm going to vigorously defend No Child Left Behind because I know in my heart of hearts it's the absolute right role for the federal government -- to provide money, but insist upon results -- to say for the first time, would you please show us whether or not the children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. And if not, there will be special help to make sure they do. And if so, there will be ample praise. You design the accountability.
I know Rod talked to you about flexibility and how we get to the numbers, which is good. Accountability isn't meant to punish anybody. Accountability systems are meant to help determine whether curriculum are working, whether or not the strategy is working, and whether or not people are being just shuffled through from grade to grade without concern as to whether or not they can read or write. That's what this is all about. And I look forward to working with you to make sure the system works well. And I just can assure you this is -- there will be a vigorous defense of what I think is the one of the most constructive reforms in education policy at the federal government ever. (Applause.)
We have put out some policies to encourage reading in math, a program for high school students who are falling behind; additional money for advanced placement for low-income schools; increasing -- larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college by taking more rigorous courses. And, of course, I've always felt that the community college system provides a great opportunity for job training. Elaine will talk about that to you. Community colleges are available, affordable; they're flexible. We don't need to be training 500 hairdressers for 50 jobs which exist. The system ought to be designed toward meeting the demand of your employers. And a good community college system will make it much easier for governors and mayors to attract jobs to your communities. And I know a lot of you have used your community college system wisely.
Governor Napolitano -- I was in Arizona, went to the Mesa Community College System. It's a fine community college system. One of the interesting stories there, a lady who worked for 15 years as a graphic design artist, and she went to the community college system to help get the skills necessary to become a viable employee in the high-tech world. And her starting pay -- I believe it's called Cable One -- was higher than her 15th year as a graphic artist, because she took time, with government help -- I think a Pell grant in her case -- to become reeducated. So we've got money in our budget to help invigorate the community college system.
Another issue that I think we need to work on -- I know we need to work on is welfare. They need to reauthorize welfare. I hope the Congress will reauthorize welfare. Welfare reform had worked. You need to have certainty as you plan your -- on how to help people become less dependent on government, and we need a welfare reform bill. And we'll push it, here in Washington.
And finally, the faith-based initiative -- I want to talk a little bit about that. My attitude is, if a program works, let's use it. If a program can help save somebody's life, it seems like to me that program ought to be allowed to access monies aimed at helping people help themselves. And yet, that's not the way it was here in Washington. Faith-based programs were discriminated against. There was a process argument. And governors are results-oriented people, and so am I. And it seems like to me, you ought have the flexibility, and people at your grass-roots level ought to have the flexibility to access taxpayers' money if they're able to meet common objectives.
Now -- and so -- well, I couldn't get the bill out of the Congress, so I just signed an executive order, which opened up federal grant money to faith-based groups, on a competitive basis.
We're also making sure that our bureaucracies don't say to faith-based groups, you can't be a faith-based group. If faith is part of being an effective program, it doesn't make sense to say to somebody, you can't practice your faith. And so we recognize here in Washington faith-based programs are a two-way street -- one, there's a federal interface, and two, that sometimes can be frightening to people of faith. And by the way, I'm talking about all faiths. This isn't just a single faith; it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim faiths, all -- which exist because they've heard the universal admonition to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself.
And so I want to applaud those of you who have set up faith-based offices, and encourage you, if you haven't, to do so. There is a lot of federal money available to effective providers of social services. One such program is going to be the $100-million drug treatment programs, where now vouchers can be issued to people where they can choose where they go, whether it be kind of a clinical program or a program designed to help change somebody's heart. By the way, if your heart gets changed, it's a lot easier to quit drinking. I know.
And so it's -- this is an opportunity that I think is a viable opportunity for governors and states to really help people. And that's why we're in office, isn't it, is to do the best -- (applause.)
So regardless of your party, I hope you have this sense of optimism I do. You see the people in your states. We are lucky to be leaders in such a fabulous country, we really are -- good, honest, decent, honorable people. We've overcome a lot. There's more to do. There's a lot we can do together.
So thanks for coming by the White House. That's my pledge. This is going to be a year in which a lot of people are probably going to think nothing can done, right, because we're all out campaigning. Well, that's not my attitude. I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue. But my pledge to you is, we'll continue to work with you. You've got what you -- you've got to do what you've got to do in your home states, in terms of politics. But surely we can shuffle that aside sometimes, and focus on our people; do what you were elected to do and what I was elected to do to make this country hopeful.
So thanks for coming by. I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions.
Bush Accuses Kerry of Waffling on Issues
Feb 23, 9:10 PM (ET)
By SCOTT LINDLAW
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush took the offensive on his re-election campaign Monday, casting Sen. John Kerry as a waffler and warning that the Democrats would raise taxes, expand the government and fail to lead decisively on national security.
Previewing his principal re-election theme, Bush made national security the centerpiece of his revamped re-election speech, explicitly invoking the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He questioned the credentials of the Democrats who want his job.
"The action we take and the decisions we make in this decade will have consequences far into this century," Bush told 1,400 people at a fund-raiser for Republican governors. "If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch."
In his 40-minute address, Bush mentioned none of the Democratic presidential candidates by name, but some of his sharpest criticism was unmistakably intended for Kerry, the front-runner.
"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." His supportive audience erupted in laughter and applause.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter disputed Bush's list of purported flip-flops. Kerry opposed Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans and stands by that; voted for NAFTA and stands by it; voted for the Patriot Act, but believes the Justice Department is using it to trample civil liberties; and stands by his vote to authorize force for Iraq, but believes Bush's prosecution of the war "created a breeding ground for terror" and alienated allies, Cutter said.
Kerry has yet to secure the Democratic nomination as he and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wage a two-man fight. Kerry holds a significant lead in the delegate chase, with contests Tuesday in Hawaii, Idaho and Utah, and a 10-state election, including California and New York, on March 2.
The president has sought to depict himself as above the political fray in recent months, even as Democrats pummeled him during their primary process. Monday, Bush signaled he has entered a new phase in which he will strike back, shelving an old speech in which he said, "the political season will come in its own time."
The November election presents "a choice between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people," he said. "It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger."
Bush pledged to improve the economy and "keep our enemies on the run," recalling his walk through the rubble of the World Trade Center on Sept. 14, 2001. The Democratic presidential hopefuls "have not offered much in the way of strategies to win the war, or policies to expand the economy," he said.
Kerry said Bush's plunge into campaign mode signaled the president is nervous.
[Ha!]
"I don't think losing 3 million jobs, having deficits as far as the eye can go, having 2 million people lose their health insurance, turning your back on kids in schools and not funding No Child Left Behind ... represents a vision," Kerry said in Queens, N.Y.
Edwards also took a swipe, telling voters in Georgia, "The people want this campaign to be about the future, not the past."
Bush tried to shrug off such criticism Monday as election-year posturing. "It's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue," Bush told governors of both parties at the White House.
Bush has kept his eye firmly fixed on re-election since taking office, tailoring his travels to battleground states, racking up IOUs with fellow Republicans and raising more than $151 million for his campaign.
What has changed is his willingness to publicly engage in the campaign, beyond fund raising.
The new address was billed as a preview of his stump speech and came at a time when he is preparing to launch a multimillion-dollar advertising barrage.
Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Monday that the president began filming campaign commercials about two weeks ago in the White House residence.
The ads will air on cable TV around the country and on network stations in competitive markets, with the slogan: "Steady Leadership in Times of Change." They begin airing March 4, just two days after the wave of primary elections that is likely to cement the Democrats' pick to challenge Bush.
Bush's approval ratings have dipped to around 50 percent in recent polls - some in the high 40s.
Bush, his loyalists and their relatives were maintaining their heavy fund-raising efforts this week. Vice President Dick Cheney raised $200,000 in Minneapolis on Monday and another $200,000 Monday evening in Wichita, Kan.
The president sought to end speculation that he will drop Cheney from the re-election ticket. Bush joked that he had again appointed Cheney chief of his vice presidential search committee - and that Cheney had again recommended himself.
"They don't come any better and I'm proud to have Dick Cheney by my side," Bush said.
Feb 23, 9:10 PM (ET)
By SCOTT LINDLAW
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush took the offensive on his re-election campaign Monday, casting Sen. John Kerry as a waffler and warning that the Democrats would raise taxes, expand the government and fail to lead decisively on national security.
Previewing his principal re-election theme, Bush made national security the centerpiece of his revamped re-election speech, explicitly invoking the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He questioned the credentials of the Democrats who want his job.
"The action we take and the decisions we make in this decade will have consequences far into this century," Bush told 1,400 people at a fund-raiser for Republican governors. "If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch."
In his 40-minute address, Bush mentioned none of the Democratic presidential candidates by name, but some of his sharpest criticism was unmistakably intended for Kerry, the front-runner.
"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." His supportive audience erupted in laughter and applause.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter disputed Bush's list of purported flip-flops. Kerry opposed Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans and stands by that; voted for NAFTA and stands by it; voted for the Patriot Act, but believes the Justice Department is using it to trample civil liberties; and stands by his vote to authorize force for Iraq, but believes Bush's prosecution of the war "created a breeding ground for terror" and alienated allies, Cutter said.
Kerry has yet to secure the Democratic nomination as he and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wage a two-man fight. Kerry holds a significant lead in the delegate chase, with contests Tuesday in Hawaii, Idaho and Utah, and a 10-state election, including California and New York, on March 2.
The president has sought to depict himself as above the political fray in recent months, even as Democrats pummeled him during their primary process. Monday, Bush signaled he has entered a new phase in which he will strike back, shelving an old speech in which he said, "the political season will come in its own time."
The November election presents "a choice between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people," he said. "It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger."
Bush pledged to improve the economy and "keep our enemies on the run," recalling his walk through the rubble of the World Trade Center on Sept. 14, 2001. The Democratic presidential hopefuls "have not offered much in the way of strategies to win the war, or policies to expand the economy," he said.
Kerry said Bush's plunge into campaign mode signaled the president is nervous.
[Ha!]
"I don't think losing 3 million jobs, having deficits as far as the eye can go, having 2 million people lose their health insurance, turning your back on kids in schools and not funding No Child Left Behind ... represents a vision," Kerry said in Queens, N.Y.
Edwards also took a swipe, telling voters in Georgia, "The people want this campaign to be about the future, not the past."
Bush tried to shrug off such criticism Monday as election-year posturing. "It's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue," Bush told governors of both parties at the White House.
Bush has kept his eye firmly fixed on re-election since taking office, tailoring his travels to battleground states, racking up IOUs with fellow Republicans and raising more than $151 million for his campaign.
What has changed is his willingness to publicly engage in the campaign, beyond fund raising.
The new address was billed as a preview of his stump speech and came at a time when he is preparing to launch a multimillion-dollar advertising barrage.
Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Monday that the president began filming campaign commercials about two weeks ago in the White House residence.
The ads will air on cable TV around the country and on network stations in competitive markets, with the slogan: "Steady Leadership in Times of Change." They begin airing March 4, just two days after the wave of primary elections that is likely to cement the Democrats' pick to challenge Bush.
Bush's approval ratings have dipped to around 50 percent in recent polls - some in the high 40s.
Bush, his loyalists and their relatives were maintaining their heavy fund-raising efforts this week. Vice President Dick Cheney raised $200,000 in Minneapolis on Monday and another $200,000 Monday evening in Wichita, Kan.
The president sought to end speculation that he will drop Cheney from the re-election ticket. Bush joked that he had again appointed Cheney chief of his vice presidential search committee - and that Cheney had again recommended himself.
"They don't come any better and I'm proud to have Dick Cheney by my side," Bush said.
Is this man getting sanity lessons from Howard Dean, or what?
Kerry Accuses GOP of Attacking Patriotism
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Democratic front-runner John Kerry said Monday that he considers Republican criticism of his voting record on defense and national security an attack on his patriotism because "that's the game they play."
The four-term Massachusetts senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran argued that Bush's re-election campaign is trying to portray him as weak on defense by citing specific votes. But Kerry, who argued that he has voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in U.S. history, said he will not allow questions to be raised about his commitment to defense by Republicans "who never fought in a war."
[What an arrogant liar!]
"They're somehow stronger on defense because they embrace every (weapons) system that was ever proposed," Kerry said. "That's not the measure of whether you're strong on defense."
The Bush-Cheney campaign says it is not questioning Kerry's patriotism or military service but rather his 19-year voting record in the Senate on military issues.
"Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism," said Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot in a conference call with reporters. "We have praised repeatedly his patriotism."
Asked for examples of Bush attacking his service in Vietnam, Kerry cited published reports that the campaign plans to question his outspoken opposition to the war after he returned.
"That reflects on the service," Kerry said. "That is a reflection on me and what I chose to do."
[Yes, that's the problem]
Kerry won numerous medals for bravery and injury during the Vietnam War and has challenged Bush to a debate on their experiences during the era and the impact on their presidential vision. Bush served in the National Guard during the war and received an honorable discharge, but he's faced questions about whether he always showed up for duty.
Kerry was introduced at a rally in Harlem Monday by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a fellow veteran who said Bush "parades around like he is a war veteran."
"When someone parades around campaigning like he is a war president, it's time for the Democratic Party to get a warrior," Rangel said.
Kerry and his supporters are eager to engage the president in a debate that would highlight his experience in the war and has accused Bush of attacking his service.
[Kerry is showing his weakness here, as well as his arrogance. He thinks he's already the nominee. I get the feeling Kerry thinks he's NEVER made a mistake, and that hubris will slay him. W will wisely ignore him.]
Bush is stepping up his campaign in preparation for a match against Kerry. Racicot said although there are mathematical possibilities of someone else winning the Democratic nomination, Kerry appears to be headed toward the nomination.
Kerry Accuses GOP of Attacking Patriotism
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Democratic front-runner John Kerry said Monday that he considers Republican criticism of his voting record on defense and national security an attack on his patriotism because "that's the game they play."
The four-term Massachusetts senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran argued that Bush's re-election campaign is trying to portray him as weak on defense by citing specific votes. But Kerry, who argued that he has voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in U.S. history, said he will not allow questions to be raised about his commitment to defense by Republicans "who never fought in a war."
[What an arrogant liar!]
"They're somehow stronger on defense because they embrace every (weapons) system that was ever proposed," Kerry said. "That's not the measure of whether you're strong on defense."
The Bush-Cheney campaign says it is not questioning Kerry's patriotism or military service but rather his 19-year voting record in the Senate on military issues.
"Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism," said Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot in a conference call with reporters. "We have praised repeatedly his patriotism."
Asked for examples of Bush attacking his service in Vietnam, Kerry cited published reports that the campaign plans to question his outspoken opposition to the war after he returned.
"That reflects on the service," Kerry said. "That is a reflection on me and what I chose to do."
[Yes, that's the problem]
Kerry won numerous medals for bravery and injury during the Vietnam War and has challenged Bush to a debate on their experiences during the era and the impact on their presidential vision. Bush served in the National Guard during the war and received an honorable discharge, but he's faced questions about whether he always showed up for duty.
Kerry was introduced at a rally in Harlem Monday by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a fellow veteran who said Bush "parades around like he is a war veteran."
"When someone parades around campaigning like he is a war president, it's time for the Democratic Party to get a warrior," Rangel said.
Kerry and his supporters are eager to engage the president in a debate that would highlight his experience in the war and has accused Bush of attacking his service.
[Kerry is showing his weakness here, as well as his arrogance. He thinks he's already the nominee. I get the feeling Kerry thinks he's NEVER made a mistake, and that hubris will slay him. W will wisely ignore him.]
Bush is stepping up his campaign in preparation for a match against Kerry. Racicot said although there are mathematical possibilities of someone else winning the Democratic nomination, Kerry appears to be headed toward the nomination.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Thanks for saying the obvious!
Kerry's lead in polls seen as misleading
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Voter surveys showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry defeating President Bush are premature, at best, and do not reflect the president's relatively stable job-approval rating, polling analysts say.
Other factors behind the numbers, meanwhile, suggest the president may not be in as much political trouble as his opponents believe.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reported Wednesday that public support for Mr. Kerry had soared, putting him 12 points ahead of the president in a head-to-head matchup among likely voters — 55 percent to 43 percent.
But the poll's footnotes suggest the Massachusetts senator's spurt in the polls may have more to do with the sharp increase in the number of Democrats who described themselves as 'likely voters' than with any change in the way voters perceive the president's job performance.
"The larger fluctuation Gallup found among likely voters probably reflects the ebb and flow of news stories about the Democratic primaries, which in turn can affect the relative number of Democrats or Republicans in the 'likely voter' pool at any given point in time," the Gallup organization said in the fine print explaining the surprising shift in the matchup numbers.
The statistics shifted during "a period of intense coverage of Democratic primaries and caucuses," which raised Democratic voter interest in the campaign and thus "boosted their chances of being included in the Gallup 'likely voter' model," Gallup said.
The big rise in the Democratic voter numbers was an "unusual situation" because "Republicans are disproportionately likely to be 'likely voters' in most situations, which has historically given them an advantage on Election Day," the polling firm said.
Making the numbers more questionable was that, between the New Hampshire and Wisconsin primaries, "Bush's job-approval rating has remained essentially stable, ranging between 49 percent and 52 percent," Gallup said.
"Thus, the changes in the horse-race figures would appear to reflect more the changing likelihood of Democrats turning out to vote than a fundamental change in the public's perceptions of Bush," the poll concluded.
Moreover, not all surveys found the Democrats doing as well as Gallup did. An American Research Group poll found the race in a virtual dead heat last week — 48 percent for Mr. Kerry and 46 percent for Mr. Bush.
The race was equally tight in another poll conducted by John Zogby. It showed Mr. Kerry narrowly defeating Mr. Bush in the states won by Al Gore in 2000, while Mr. Bush won easily in the states he carried in that election.
Polling analysts said a major reason for the decline in Mr. Bush's matchup numbers is the result of the intense Democratic attacks throughout the early primaries that received heavy media attention night after night.
"You can't possibly evaluate the president's strength or vulnerability in a straight head-to-head ballot question taken immediately after the Democrats had dominated the discussion for two months," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
"You need to look at historical comparisons for any valid sense of the president's standing today. Historically, Bush now stands at almost exactly the same place Bill Clinton stood in February 1996 and Richard Nixon stood in February 1972," Mr. Ayres said.
"Bush is basically at 51 percent or 52 percent in the [independent] Gallup Poll. Clinton was at 53 percent and Nixon was in 52 percent," he said. Both presidents easily won re-election in those years, with Mr. Nixon winning in a 49-state re-election landslide.
Other pollsters said that a spike in the Democratic vote in the early months of an election year after a string of hard-fought, media-promoted primaries was nothing new.
In May 1984, for example, after a tough Democratic primary battle, polls showed Democrat Walter Mondale locked in a 49 percent to 49 percent dead heat against President Reagan. Mr. Reagan won that year in a 49-state landslide.
Recent polls also show voters are not buying a lot of the Democrats' attack lines they used in the primaries against Mr. Bush.
A Pew Research Center poll released Thursday, which gave Mr. Bush a 53 percent favorability score, found that a 55 percent majority believe the war in Iraq has helped the United States in its war on terrorism.
When asked what has had the biggest impact on the mushrooming budget deficit, 61 percent cited the costs of the war in Iraq, compared to only 8 percent who point to the Bush tax cuts that Democrats have blamed for the fiscal shortfall, the Pew poll said.
Kerry's lead in polls seen as misleading
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Voter surveys showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry defeating President Bush are premature, at best, and do not reflect the president's relatively stable job-approval rating, polling analysts say.
Other factors behind the numbers, meanwhile, suggest the president may not be in as much political trouble as his opponents believe.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reported Wednesday that public support for Mr. Kerry had soared, putting him 12 points ahead of the president in a head-to-head matchup among likely voters — 55 percent to 43 percent.
But the poll's footnotes suggest the Massachusetts senator's spurt in the polls may have more to do with the sharp increase in the number of Democrats who described themselves as 'likely voters' than with any change in the way voters perceive the president's job performance.
"The larger fluctuation Gallup found among likely voters probably reflects the ebb and flow of news stories about the Democratic primaries, which in turn can affect the relative number of Democrats or Republicans in the 'likely voter' pool at any given point in time," the Gallup organization said in the fine print explaining the surprising shift in the matchup numbers.
The statistics shifted during "a period of intense coverage of Democratic primaries and caucuses," which raised Democratic voter interest in the campaign and thus "boosted their chances of being included in the Gallup 'likely voter' model," Gallup said.
The big rise in the Democratic voter numbers was an "unusual situation" because "Republicans are disproportionately likely to be 'likely voters' in most situations, which has historically given them an advantage on Election Day," the polling firm said.
Making the numbers more questionable was that, between the New Hampshire and Wisconsin primaries, "Bush's job-approval rating has remained essentially stable, ranging between 49 percent and 52 percent," Gallup said.
"Thus, the changes in the horse-race figures would appear to reflect more the changing likelihood of Democrats turning out to vote than a fundamental change in the public's perceptions of Bush," the poll concluded.
Moreover, not all surveys found the Democrats doing as well as Gallup did. An American Research Group poll found the race in a virtual dead heat last week — 48 percent for Mr. Kerry and 46 percent for Mr. Bush.
The race was equally tight in another poll conducted by John Zogby. It showed Mr. Kerry narrowly defeating Mr. Bush in the states won by Al Gore in 2000, while Mr. Bush won easily in the states he carried in that election.
Polling analysts said a major reason for the decline in Mr. Bush's matchup numbers is the result of the intense Democratic attacks throughout the early primaries that received heavy media attention night after night.
"You can't possibly evaluate the president's strength or vulnerability in a straight head-to-head ballot question taken immediately after the Democrats had dominated the discussion for two months," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
"You need to look at historical comparisons for any valid sense of the president's standing today. Historically, Bush now stands at almost exactly the same place Bill Clinton stood in February 1996 and Richard Nixon stood in February 1972," Mr. Ayres said.
"Bush is basically at 51 percent or 52 percent in the [independent] Gallup Poll. Clinton was at 53 percent and Nixon was in 52 percent," he said. Both presidents easily won re-election in those years, with Mr. Nixon winning in a 49-state re-election landslide.
Other pollsters said that a spike in the Democratic vote in the early months of an election year after a string of hard-fought, media-promoted primaries was nothing new.
In May 1984, for example, after a tough Democratic primary battle, polls showed Democrat Walter Mondale locked in a 49 percent to 49 percent dead heat against President Reagan. Mr. Reagan won that year in a 49-state landslide.
Recent polls also show voters are not buying a lot of the Democrats' attack lines they used in the primaries against Mr. Bush.
A Pew Research Center poll released Thursday, which gave Mr. Bush a 53 percent favorability score, found that a 55 percent majority believe the war in Iraq has helped the United States in its war on terrorism.
When asked what has had the biggest impact on the mushrooming budget deficit, 61 percent cited the costs of the war in Iraq, compared to only 8 percent who point to the Bush tax cuts that Democrats have blamed for the fiscal shortfall, the Pew poll said.
Nader Announces He'll Run for President
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader announced Sunday he is running again for president, this time as an independent, and rejected claims that a longshot candidacy would merely siphon enough votes from the Democrats to ensure President Bush's re-election.
But Nader's decision was greeted with a chorus of condemnation from Democrats, longtime friends and former supporters who blame him for Al Gore's loss four years ago. They suggested that Nader would not pull close to the 2.7 percent of the vote he won before without the backing of an established party and some of his past supporters.
Republicans resisted the temptation to gloat as party chairman Ed Gillespie proclaimed that Bush would win a second term no matter who runs. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said, "It will make less difference than the Democrats fear, but I know they're very nervous about it."
In getting into the White House sweepstakes, Nader declared that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and he accused both Democrats and Republicans of being dominated by corporate lobbyists who "care little" about the needs of ordinary Americans. [Translation: Nader is a socialist.]
"It's a question between both parties flunking," Nader said on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he chose to make his announcement. He asserted that "it's time to change the equation and bring millions of American people into the political arena."
Nader said he will mount a national campaign as an independent to highlight issues he claims the major parties are ignoring, including universal health care, rising poverty and environmental concerns.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called the decision "unfortunate." [That means McAuliffe is as effective at persuasion as he is winning elections.]
"You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush," McAuliffe said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico minced no words. "It's a total act of ego," he said.
Liberal Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, the only independent in the House and a longtime Nader friend, called Nader's decision "counterproductive." Even the Green Party, whose banner Nader carried four years ago, chose to focus on its own priorities.
"Our midterm goal is the creation of a multiparty political system and the participation of a strong Green Party in that system," said Ben Manski, the party's co-chairman.
But Nader dismissed his critics among "the liberal intelligentsia," and called the spoiler moniker "contemptuous."
"It shows how hostage they are to the antiquated electoral system and how unwilling they are to oppose and change it," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I would urge them to calm down, start reflecting, be tolerant of democracy and freedom and watch events unfold since we're all on the same page of wanting to retire our supremely elected president, George W. Bush."
Nader predicted he would get more net votes from conservatives and liberal Republicans dissatisfied with Bush's record than from registered Democrats. [Nader is insane.]
Democratic officials on Sunday claimed that Nader has promised not criticize the Democratic nominee but, rather, focus his ammunition on the Bush administration. Nader acknowledged the pledge but said it does not mean he will refrain from criticizing Democrats if they attack him. "I'm not going to avoid responding," he told The AP.
Nader, who scheduled a news conference Monday to discuss his issues, said he plans to begin campaigning this week on Bush's home turf of Texas, where he will focus on Bush's record. [More proof of insanity.]
As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering nearly 3 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in either state, the Democrat would have won the general election.
Nader's decision not to seek the Green Party's nomination has raised doubts that he can get on many state ballots without a party organization or major financial resources. An independent needs about 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a prospect that Nader likened to "climbing a cliff with a slippery slope."
Nader said his exploratory committee had raised about $150,000 in the past five months. He said he is confident he can raise more than the $8 million he received last time using the same Internet fund-raising strategies that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean employed before dropping out of the race. Nader will rely on small contributions and refuse money from corporations and political action committees. [Ah, a new home for the Deaniacs!]
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader announced Sunday he is running again for president, this time as an independent, and rejected claims that a longshot candidacy would merely siphon enough votes from the Democrats to ensure President Bush's re-election.
But Nader's decision was greeted with a chorus of condemnation from Democrats, longtime friends and former supporters who blame him for Al Gore's loss four years ago. They suggested that Nader would not pull close to the 2.7 percent of the vote he won before without the backing of an established party and some of his past supporters.
Republicans resisted the temptation to gloat as party chairman Ed Gillespie proclaimed that Bush would win a second term no matter who runs. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said, "It will make less difference than the Democrats fear, but I know they're very nervous about it."
In getting into the White House sweepstakes, Nader declared that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and he accused both Democrats and Republicans of being dominated by corporate lobbyists who "care little" about the needs of ordinary Americans. [Translation: Nader is a socialist.]
"It's a question between both parties flunking," Nader said on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he chose to make his announcement. He asserted that "it's time to change the equation and bring millions of American people into the political arena."
Nader said he will mount a national campaign as an independent to highlight issues he claims the major parties are ignoring, including universal health care, rising poverty and environmental concerns.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called the decision "unfortunate." [That means McAuliffe is as effective at persuasion as he is winning elections.]
"You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush," McAuliffe said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico minced no words. "It's a total act of ego," he said.
Liberal Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, the only independent in the House and a longtime Nader friend, called Nader's decision "counterproductive." Even the Green Party, whose banner Nader carried four years ago, chose to focus on its own priorities.
"Our midterm goal is the creation of a multiparty political system and the participation of a strong Green Party in that system," said Ben Manski, the party's co-chairman.
But Nader dismissed his critics among "the liberal intelligentsia," and called the spoiler moniker "contemptuous."
"It shows how hostage they are to the antiquated electoral system and how unwilling they are to oppose and change it," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I would urge them to calm down, start reflecting, be tolerant of democracy and freedom and watch events unfold since we're all on the same page of wanting to retire our supremely elected president, George W. Bush."
Nader predicted he would get more net votes from conservatives and liberal Republicans dissatisfied with Bush's record than from registered Democrats. [Nader is insane.]
Democratic officials on Sunday claimed that Nader has promised not criticize the Democratic nominee but, rather, focus his ammunition on the Bush administration. Nader acknowledged the pledge but said it does not mean he will refrain from criticizing Democrats if they attack him. "I'm not going to avoid responding," he told The AP.
Nader, who scheduled a news conference Monday to discuss his issues, said he plans to begin campaigning this week on Bush's home turf of Texas, where he will focus on Bush's record. [More proof of insanity.]
As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering nearly 3 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in either state, the Democrat would have won the general election.
Nader's decision not to seek the Green Party's nomination has raised doubts that he can get on many state ballots without a party organization or major financial resources. An independent needs about 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a prospect that Nader likened to "climbing a cliff with a slippery slope."
Nader said his exploratory committee had raised about $150,000 in the past five months. He said he is confident he can raise more than the $8 million he received last time using the same Internet fund-raising strategies that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean employed before dropping out of the race. Nader will rely on small contributions and refuse money from corporations and political action committees. [Ah, a new home for the Deaniacs!]
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Thin gruel soup, this Kerry. Emphasis added.
Kerry Is Not Bush--and It Shows
By Lawrence B. Lindsey
Posted: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
ARTICLES
Financial Times (London)
Publication Date: February 18, 2004
This will strike some of my former colleagues as off-message, but I like John Kerry, even though I am not going to vote for him. I got to know the senator 13 years ago when I made a courtesy call seeking his vote for my confirmation to the Federal Reserve. He confronted me with a 1988 article I had written as a Harvard professor criticizing the Massachusetts economy and the administration of Michael Dukakis. Mr Kerry had been lieutenant-governor under Mr Dukakis, and I was feeling uncomfortable. He then said: "You turned out to be right, didn't you?"
Telling an egghead like me that he was right is like telling a mother her baby is cute. That and all my subsequent conversations with Mr Kerry were policy-oriented and highbrow. His reputation as one of the more cerebral Senate members is well deserved.
That is why I am so disappointed in his campaign. Now that he has his party's nomination wrapped up, he and his spokesmen are positioning themselves for the main election, by moving to what the media calls "the centre". But the positioning challenge for the Kerry campaign is not horizontal--moving left, right or centre. It is vertical. Its current policy positions lack depth.
Take taxes. Mr Kerry has called for the repeal of President George W. Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 (106,000 pounds) a year. One of my firm's clients, a Democrat, asked us to calculate how much revenue that would raise. The Kerry campaign had not put out a revenue estimate of its own. Nor did it make it easy for others to do so. The Kerry proposal did not specify whether it meant $200,000 of taxable income or total family income. It did not say whether that threshold was for families or single taxpayers. Most importantly, it did not say whether it was repealing the rate reductions alone, or also raising taxes on dividends and capital gains received by these taxpayers.
By contrast in December 1999, when then-Governor Bush proposed his tax plan, the campaign produced detailed multi-year revenue estimates as well as distributional analyses of what this meant for different income brackets.
On economic policy more generally, the Kerry campaign gives no indication of the kind of economy it expects to inherit. In 2000, the Bush campaign had developed a quarter-by-quarter forecast. Having a well developed and detailed policy made it possible to govern from day one.
The Kerry campaign is for controlling healthcare costs and reforming Medicare but has no plan on how to do so. Mr Kerry says he will review all trade agreements in the first four months. To what effect? The candidate running on fiscal discipline does not even have a budget. The Bush campaign kept a detailed budget that simulated non-partisan congressional scoring methods from day one.
Mr Kerry's disappointing lack of detail is mirrored by an even more disturbing vacuum on the personnel side. Mr Kerry has smart political tacticians, such as Bob Shrum, and good speechwriters. But who is his chief economic policy adviser? Who is his chief national security adviser? The Bush campaign formally announced that Condi Rice and I would fill those roles in March 1999. At that point, Mr Bush and I had been discussing economic issues for well over a year and his conversations with Ms Rice had been going on at least as long.
As the clear choice of his party's Washington-based establishment, Mr Kerry could have attracted top talent back in late 2002. Given his intellectual proclivities, it surprises me that he did not. It is also surprising that the media let him get away with this. [Not me. It's the media, stupid.]
With insufficient time left for the candidate to get comfortable with new people and new ideas, the Kerry campaign will probably go for the default option: bring in the Beltway establishment. One should expect to see Senate Democratic staffers and Washington and Wall Street notables moving in to fill the policy and spokesmen vacuum. The country could do worse; but it could also do better.
A Kerry victory in November is most likely to occur if things deteriorate badly and the country really needs bold new ideas. A Kerry administration staffed from Capitol Hill will not deliver. Try to think of one bold new idea that has emerged from the Senate Democratic caucus in the past 10 years.
With four months until the Democratic convention, Mr Kerry is going to have to think hard about what he will do if elected. My hunch is that this autumn, voters will care a lot less about Mr Kerry's curriculum vitae and electability and a lot more about what will happen after the election. If so, not being George Bush will not be enough for John Kerry any more than not being Bill Clinton was enough for Bob Dole. That is the Kerry campaign's problem. But it will become the country's problem if Mr Kerry is elected.
Lawrence B. Lindsey is a visiting scholar at AEI and former chief economic adviser to President George W. Bush.
Kerry Is Not Bush--and It Shows
By Lawrence B. Lindsey
Posted: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
ARTICLES
Financial Times (London)
Publication Date: February 18, 2004
This will strike some of my former colleagues as off-message, but I like John Kerry, even though I am not going to vote for him. I got to know the senator 13 years ago when I made a courtesy call seeking his vote for my confirmation to the Federal Reserve. He confronted me with a 1988 article I had written as a Harvard professor criticizing the Massachusetts economy and the administration of Michael Dukakis. Mr Kerry had been lieutenant-governor under Mr Dukakis, and I was feeling uncomfortable. He then said: "You turned out to be right, didn't you?"
Telling an egghead like me that he was right is like telling a mother her baby is cute. That and all my subsequent conversations with Mr Kerry were policy-oriented and highbrow. His reputation as one of the more cerebral Senate members is well deserved.
That is why I am so disappointed in his campaign. Now that he has his party's nomination wrapped up, he and his spokesmen are positioning themselves for the main election, by moving to what the media calls "the centre". But the positioning challenge for the Kerry campaign is not horizontal--moving left, right or centre. It is vertical. Its current policy positions lack depth.
Take taxes. Mr Kerry has called for the repeal of President George W. Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 (106,000 pounds) a year. One of my firm's clients, a Democrat, asked us to calculate how much revenue that would raise. The Kerry campaign had not put out a revenue estimate of its own. Nor did it make it easy for others to do so. The Kerry proposal did not specify whether it meant $200,000 of taxable income or total family income. It did not say whether that threshold was for families or single taxpayers. Most importantly, it did not say whether it was repealing the rate reductions alone, or also raising taxes on dividends and capital gains received by these taxpayers.
By contrast in December 1999, when then-Governor Bush proposed his tax plan, the campaign produced detailed multi-year revenue estimates as well as distributional analyses of what this meant for different income brackets.
On economic policy more generally, the Kerry campaign gives no indication of the kind of economy it expects to inherit. In 2000, the Bush campaign had developed a quarter-by-quarter forecast. Having a well developed and detailed policy made it possible to govern from day one.
The Kerry campaign is for controlling healthcare costs and reforming Medicare but has no plan on how to do so. Mr Kerry says he will review all trade agreements in the first four months. To what effect? The candidate running on fiscal discipline does not even have a budget. The Bush campaign kept a detailed budget that simulated non-partisan congressional scoring methods from day one.
Mr Kerry's disappointing lack of detail is mirrored by an even more disturbing vacuum on the personnel side. Mr Kerry has smart political tacticians, such as Bob Shrum, and good speechwriters. But who is his chief economic policy adviser? Who is his chief national security adviser? The Bush campaign formally announced that Condi Rice and I would fill those roles in March 1999. At that point, Mr Bush and I had been discussing economic issues for well over a year and his conversations with Ms Rice had been going on at least as long.
As the clear choice of his party's Washington-based establishment, Mr Kerry could have attracted top talent back in late 2002. Given his intellectual proclivities, it surprises me that he did not. It is also surprising that the media let him get away with this. [Not me. It's the media, stupid.]
With insufficient time left for the candidate to get comfortable with new people and new ideas, the Kerry campaign will probably go for the default option: bring in the Beltway establishment. One should expect to see Senate Democratic staffers and Washington and Wall Street notables moving in to fill the policy and spokesmen vacuum. The country could do worse; but it could also do better.
A Kerry victory in November is most likely to occur if things deteriorate badly and the country really needs bold new ideas. A Kerry administration staffed from Capitol Hill will not deliver. Try to think of one bold new idea that has emerged from the Senate Democratic caucus in the past 10 years.
With four months until the Democratic convention, Mr Kerry is going to have to think hard about what he will do if elected. My hunch is that this autumn, voters will care a lot less about Mr Kerry's curriculum vitae and electability and a lot more about what will happen after the election. If so, not being George Bush will not be enough for John Kerry any more than not being Bill Clinton was enough for Bob Dole. That is the Kerry campaign's problem. But it will become the country's problem if Mr Kerry is elected.
Lawrence B. Lindsey is a visiting scholar at AEI and former chief economic adviser to President George W. Bush.
OK FOLKS, here's how weird Kerry is...Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry (edited for emphasis)
Blunt and Influential, Kerry's Wife Is an X Factor
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
ATLANTA, Feb. 21 — In December 2002, when Teresa Heinz Kerry's husband, Senator John Kerry, came home from his physical boasting about his low cholesterol, she stared at his screening results for prostate cancer and saw trouble where he had not.
"He didn't know anything," she recalled. "He knew zero, zilch."
But Ms. Heinz Kerry, a physician's daughter who peruses medical journals and toxicology articles and is intrigued by alternative medicine and Eastern philosophy, knew enough to have her husband's blood retested for C-reactive protein, a little-known indicator of potentially cancerous inflammation. Two days before Christmas, his doctor told Mr. Kerry that his wife's fears were well placed; he was in the very early stages of prostate cancer.
On the campaign trail, she speaks in jarringly frank terms about dealing with grief and loss; she talks openly about distinctly un-Western modes of healing, which can leave her audiences as mystified as they are impressed.
In a move that was reminiscent of how Hillary Rodham Clinton became a lightning rod for her husband, the Republican National Committee on Friday sent journalists an e-mail message quoting Ms. Heinz Kerry comparing her husband to a "good wine," adding, "You know, it takes time to mature, and then it gets really good and you can sip it."
...At the time, there were juicy details about her Botox treatments and her prenuptial agreement, her Chanel shoes and her cashmere scarves. There was frequent mention of her inherited millions and the ketchup-red-and-white Gulfstream II — the most visible legacy of her 25-year marriage to Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who was killed in a plane crash in 1991.
But there is a more unusual and, her admirers say, more authentic side to Ms. Heinz Kerry's public persona that stands in sharp contrast to that of her husband.
Where Mr. Kerry, 60, is guarded and cautious, she is uninhibited, cursing in one of her five languages or musing aloud in accented English about why her husband of nearly nine years is so often called aloof. Where he appears stiff, she is spontaneous, dispensing unsolicited romantic advice to campaign workers and reporters. Where he can appear calculating, she comes across as guileless, trashing a profile of her in a major newspaper as a "dumb piece" by "a dumb person who wrote it."
..."That's nobody's business," she said when asked how often she had had Botox injections.
She pronounces herself ardently pro-choice, despite being a Roman Catholic, but in the next breath denounces the blunt language of some abortion rights advocates. "I'm old-fashioned," she said. "So I wouldn't use the phraseology of some people that say, `No, my body, I do what I want!' I find that kind of crude terminology, period."
...when he is speaking his wife often wears a pained, or even bored, expression. She says it is merely the look she gets when she is thinking deeply. Or she pleads shyness, saying Mr. Kerry's growing crowds at times have overwhelmed her.
"I love medicine," said Ms. Heinz Kerry. Her father wanted her to go to medical school, but "the only woman doctor I knew who had a child was divorced," she said. "I wanted to have children, be a mother, be a wife, and I felt there was no room to be a doctor." She has three grown sons from her marriage to Senator Heinz, and Mr. Kerry has two daughters from his previous marriage.
Her ideas about healing range far afield of Western science. She talks to bewildered audiences about tai chi, about "embracing the tiger" — a metaphor for dealing with loss or grief by confronting and accepting it. She quotes a "monk" — who turns out to be a meditation student she met at a spa — who urged her to "cry to Shiva, hold it, and then let it go."
Blunt and Influential, Kerry's Wife Is an X Factor
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
ATLANTA, Feb. 21 — In December 2002, when Teresa Heinz Kerry's husband, Senator John Kerry, came home from his physical boasting about his low cholesterol, she stared at his screening results for prostate cancer and saw trouble where he had not.
"He didn't know anything," she recalled. "He knew zero, zilch."
But Ms. Heinz Kerry, a physician's daughter who peruses medical journals and toxicology articles and is intrigued by alternative medicine and Eastern philosophy, knew enough to have her husband's blood retested for C-reactive protein, a little-known indicator of potentially cancerous inflammation. Two days before Christmas, his doctor told Mr. Kerry that his wife's fears were well placed; he was in the very early stages of prostate cancer.
On the campaign trail, she speaks in jarringly frank terms about dealing with grief and loss; she talks openly about distinctly un-Western modes of healing, which can leave her audiences as mystified as they are impressed.
In a move that was reminiscent of how Hillary Rodham Clinton became a lightning rod for her husband, the Republican National Committee on Friday sent journalists an e-mail message quoting Ms. Heinz Kerry comparing her husband to a "good wine," adding, "You know, it takes time to mature, and then it gets really good and you can sip it."
...At the time, there were juicy details about her Botox treatments and her prenuptial agreement, her Chanel shoes and her cashmere scarves. There was frequent mention of her inherited millions and the ketchup-red-and-white Gulfstream II — the most visible legacy of her 25-year marriage to Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who was killed in a plane crash in 1991.
But there is a more unusual and, her admirers say, more authentic side to Ms. Heinz Kerry's public persona that stands in sharp contrast to that of her husband.
Where Mr. Kerry, 60, is guarded and cautious, she is uninhibited, cursing in one of her five languages or musing aloud in accented English about why her husband of nearly nine years is so often called aloof. Where he appears stiff, she is spontaneous, dispensing unsolicited romantic advice to campaign workers and reporters. Where he can appear calculating, she comes across as guileless, trashing a profile of her in a major newspaper as a "dumb piece" by "a dumb person who wrote it."
..."That's nobody's business," she said when asked how often she had had Botox injections.
She pronounces herself ardently pro-choice, despite being a Roman Catholic, but in the next breath denounces the blunt language of some abortion rights advocates. "I'm old-fashioned," she said. "So I wouldn't use the phraseology of some people that say, `No, my body, I do what I want!' I find that kind of crude terminology, period."
...when he is speaking his wife often wears a pained, or even bored, expression. She says it is merely the look she gets when she is thinking deeply. Or she pleads shyness, saying Mr. Kerry's growing crowds at times have overwhelmed her.
"I love medicine," said Ms. Heinz Kerry. Her father wanted her to go to medical school, but "the only woman doctor I knew who had a child was divorced," she said. "I wanted to have children, be a mother, be a wife, and I felt there was no room to be a doctor." She has three grown sons from her marriage to Senator Heinz, and Mr. Kerry has two daughters from his previous marriage.
Her ideas about healing range far afield of Western science. She talks to bewildered audiences about tai chi, about "embracing the tiger" — a metaphor for dealing with loss or grief by confronting and accepting it. She quotes a "monk" — who turns out to be a meditation student she met at a spa — who urged her to "cry to Shiva, hold it, and then let it go."
Guess what? I'm sure that some will see this as W's strident anti-Semitism, and a sign he is way too religious to lead America. Just wait an see...
Ticket, please! Bush wants to see Mel Gibson's flick
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/WASHINGTON — President Bush wants to see the controversial new Mel Gibson film, “The Passion of the Christ,” his spokesman said Friday.
Asked if the president wanted to see the Crucifixion drama, opening in U.S. theaters Wednesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, “I think he does and I think at some point he probably will.”
The White House has a private theater in which presidents can view first-run films. Gibson directed, financed and co-wrote the movie, which tells the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
It has become highly controversial even before its opening, with some claiming that it could spark anti-Semitism by making it seem that the Jews as a people were responsible for Christ’s death.
Ticket, please! Bush wants to see Mel Gibson's flick
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/WASHINGTON — President Bush wants to see the controversial new Mel Gibson film, “The Passion of the Christ,” his spokesman said Friday.
Asked if the president wanted to see the Crucifixion drama, opening in U.S. theaters Wednesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, “I think he does and I think at some point he probably will.”
The White House has a private theater in which presidents can view first-run films. Gibson directed, financed and co-wrote the movie, which tells the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
It has become highly controversial even before its opening, with some claiming that it could spark anti-Semitism by making it seem that the Jews as a people were responsible for Christ’s death.
OK let's be honest, this would be good news for Pres. Bush. Overnight, he would be back at 60% approvals with a double digit lead over Kerry:
Bin Laden 'surrounded'
February 22, 2004
A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.
The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.
The claim is attributed to "a well-placed intelligence source" in Washington, who is quoted as saying: "He (bin Laden) is boxed in."
The paper says the hostile terrain makes an all-out conventional military assault impossible. The plan to capture him would depend on a "grab-him-and-go" style operation.
"US helicopters already sited on the Afghanistan border will swoop in to extricate him," the newspaper says. It claims bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snow storms howling down from the 10,000ft-high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport."
The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.
"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush," the paper says. "Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election."
The article says bin Laden's movements are monitored by a National Security Agency satellite.
On Thursday last week, General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said America had been engaged in "intense" efforts to capture bin Laden, who was believed to be hiding in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But he insisted that the focus of the search had not narrowed for months.
The Sunday Telegraph
Bin Laden 'surrounded'
February 22, 2004
A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.
The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.
The claim is attributed to "a well-placed intelligence source" in Washington, who is quoted as saying: "He (bin Laden) is boxed in."
The paper says the hostile terrain makes an all-out conventional military assault impossible. The plan to capture him would depend on a "grab-him-and-go" style operation.
"US helicopters already sited on the Afghanistan border will swoop in to extricate him," the newspaper says. It claims bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snow storms howling down from the 10,000ft-high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport."
The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.
"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush," the paper says. "Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election."
The article says bin Laden's movements are monitored by a National Security Agency satellite.
On Thursday last week, General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said America had been engaged in "intense" efforts to capture bin Laden, who was believed to be hiding in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But he insisted that the focus of the search had not narrowed for months.
The Sunday Telegraph
OK SO NADER GETS IN: Net effect will be to peel off a percent or two off Kerry's left. As this Fox report makes clear, this benefits Bush. (See my highlights). (I have edited the story down to highlight the Nader factor.)
Nader to Jump in Presidential Race
Friday, February 20, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Ralph Nader (search), the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.
A formal announcement by Nader is expected this weekend.
"He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play," Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.
The relationship between Nader and the Green Party (search) has not been smooth in recent years. Money and ballot access continue to be Nader's main concerns as he's mulled a run this year.
The Nader Factor
Some are wondering what effect, if any, Nader's entry into the race will have on the other candidates, particularly as Kerry and Edwards both try to attract independent voters. Nader's 2000 presidential run is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush.
"I don't think it will have a tremendous amount of effect," John Edwards told reporters Friday. "I think if we have a candidate across the ticket that's appealing to independents, appealing to the kind of people that might be attracted to a Nader campaign, then we'll be fine. And I think I am exactly that kind of candidate."
• Latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
According to the Fox poll, when asked who would do a better job as a wartime president, 50 percent said Bush, while 38 percent said Kerry. Kerry beat Bush when it came to who voters thought would handle the economy better, 47 percent to 40 percent.
With Nader now in the race, 43 percent said they would vote for Bush if the election was held today, 42 percent for Kerry and 4 percent for Nader.
"You're looking at a nation at war," said Fox News analyst Tammy Bruce. "With that realization, President Bush does win in the polls when it comes to handling the war. Americans really in the back of their minds understand -- who do you want [in office]? A guy who should be in a Calvin Klein ad in the White House," she said, referring to Edwards.
"I really believe Edwards is still maneuvering into a second place spot. I think he knows he can't win and he's really trying for the vice presidency."
Fox News' Carl Cameron, Steve Centanni, Major Garrett, Yolanda Maggi and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Nader to Jump in Presidential Race
Friday, February 20, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Ralph Nader (search), the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.
A formal announcement by Nader is expected this weekend.
"He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play," Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.
The relationship between Nader and the Green Party (search) has not been smooth in recent years. Money and ballot access continue to be Nader's main concerns as he's mulled a run this year.
The Nader Factor
Some are wondering what effect, if any, Nader's entry into the race will have on the other candidates, particularly as Kerry and Edwards both try to attract independent voters. Nader's 2000 presidential run is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush.
"I don't think it will have a tremendous amount of effect," John Edwards told reporters Friday. "I think if we have a candidate across the ticket that's appealing to independents, appealing to the kind of people that might be attracted to a Nader campaign, then we'll be fine. And I think I am exactly that kind of candidate."
• Latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
According to the Fox poll, when asked who would do a better job as a wartime president, 50 percent said Bush, while 38 percent said Kerry. Kerry beat Bush when it came to who voters thought would handle the economy better, 47 percent to 40 percent.
With Nader now in the race, 43 percent said they would vote for Bush if the election was held today, 42 percent for Kerry and 4 percent for Nader.
"You're looking at a nation at war," said Fox News analyst Tammy Bruce. "With that realization, President Bush does win in the polls when it comes to handling the war. Americans really in the back of their minds understand -- who do you want [in office]? A guy who should be in a Calvin Klein ad in the White House," she said, referring to Edwards.
"I really believe Edwards is still maneuvering into a second place spot. I think he knows he can't win and he's really trying for the vice presidency."
Fox News' Carl Cameron, Steve Centanni, Major Garrett, Yolanda Maggi and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
My comment: It was about time. It's also time for Pres. Bush to come out strong for a Defense of Marriage Amendment to the US constutution. It's the right thing to do, and it's also good politics. Do it, Kerry and co. will scream, but the people will be with you, Mr. President.
Schwarzenegger Seeks Stop to Gay Weddings
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
BURLINGAME, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) waded deeper into the debate over same-sex marriages, directing the state attorney general to take immediate legal steps to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
AP Photo
AFP
Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
San Francisco Sues State Over Gay Marriage
(AP Video)
Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd at the state GOP convention that "in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball."
"It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco," he said Friday night.
Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by a judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.
A spokeswoman for Lockyer told the Los Angeles Times that the attorney general's office planned to seek a judgment soon declaring the city's action a violation of state law, but said Schwarzenegger had no authority over the elected Democrat.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive.
"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."
Earlier Friday, Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order, saying it failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday.
The Campaign for California Families argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.
"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.
Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.
Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.
"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.
But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.
"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.
Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.
About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.
While defending its new marriage policy in court, the city also is suing the state, challenging its gay-marriage ban. The city contends the ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
In Bernalillo, N.M., dozens of gay and lesbian couples arrived to get married Friday after a county clerk announced she would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Sandoval County clerk's office granted licenses to 26 same-sex couples before New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid issued a late afternoon opinion saying the licenses were invalid under state law.
The clerk's office stopped issuing licenses and told newly wed couples their licenses were invalid.
Schwarzenegger Seeks Stop to Gay Weddings
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
BURLINGAME, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) waded deeper into the debate over same-sex marriages, directing the state attorney general to take immediate legal steps to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
AP Photo
AFP
Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
San Francisco Sues State Over Gay Marriage
(AP Video)
Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd at the state GOP convention that "in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball."
"It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco," he said Friday night.
Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by a judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.
A spokeswoman for Lockyer told the Los Angeles Times that the attorney general's office planned to seek a judgment soon declaring the city's action a violation of state law, but said Schwarzenegger had no authority over the elected Democrat.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive.
"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."
Earlier Friday, Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order, saying it failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday.
The Campaign for California Families argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.
"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.
Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.
Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.
"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.
But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.
"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.
Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.
About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.
While defending its new marriage policy in court, the city also is suing the state, challenging its gay-marriage ban. The city contends the ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
In Bernalillo, N.M., dozens of gay and lesbian couples arrived to get married Friday after a county clerk announced she would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Sandoval County clerk's office granted licenses to 26 same-sex couples before New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid issued a late afternoon opinion saying the licenses were invalid under state law.
The clerk's office stopped issuing licenses and told newly wed couples their licenses were invalid.
So Kerry the Scary has emerged as the leader of the pack and Republicans are scared that he might bump off W. Let's get real:
Kerry
Massachusetts
Liberal
Againts every defense system
Never saw a tax he didn't like
More liberal than Kennedy
Vietnam protester
Bush
Texas
Pro-defense in a time of war
Compassionate conservative
Incumbamt president
Business, jobs improving
Here's the problem: Dean was such a delight that GOPers got McGovern excited. To my fellow conservatives: If Dean never existed, we'd be delighteted to be up against Kerry. As Sean Hannity says, Let not your heart be troubled.
Kerry
Massachusetts
Liberal
Againts every defense system
Never saw a tax he didn't like
More liberal than Kennedy
Vietnam protester
Bush
Texas
Pro-defense in a time of war
Compassionate conservative
Incumbamt president
Business, jobs improving
Here's the problem: Dean was such a delight that GOPers got McGovern excited. To my fellow conservatives: If Dean never existed, we'd be delighteted to be up against Kerry. As Sean Hannity says, Let not your heart be troubled.
Bush 49% Kerry 43%
Election 2004 Presidential Ballot
Bush 49%
Kerry 43%
Other 3%
Not Sure 5%
RasmussenReports.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen Reports Home
February 20, 2004--President George W. Bush now leads Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry by six points in the latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll. As of this morning, Bush attracts support from 49% of the nation's likely voters while Kerry is the choice for 43%.
Election 2004 Presidential Ballot
Bush 49%
Kerry 43%
Other 3%
Not Sure 5%
RasmussenReports.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen Reports Home
February 20, 2004--President George W. Bush now leads Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry by six points in the latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll. As of this morning, Bush attracts support from 49% of the nation's likely voters while Kerry is the choice for 43%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)