Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerry gets boost from surprising sources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kerry gets boost from surprising sources

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Mar22.htm

    Ex-Bush aide criticizes president, and GOP lawmakers come to senator's defense

    Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign is getting an unexpected boost from an unlikely bunch: former Bush administration officials and congressional Republicans.

    In the past week, GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) have broken ranks and defended Kerry against President Bush's assertion that the Massachusetts senator is weak on national defense.

    Clarke detailed his allegations in a book released yesterday. In it, he echoes criticism of Bush's judgment and fixation on Iraq that were leveled by former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill in his book, which was published in January. Together, McCain, Hagel, Clarke and O'Neill, wittingly or not, are helping Kerry undercut Bush's chief reelection message: that America is safer with this president in charge, GOP and Democratic strategists say.

    Republicans are unintentionally assisting Kerry on the domestic front, too. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and other congressional conservatives are accusing Bush of driving up deficits, a top Kerry campaign message, and misleading the country about the cost of the new Medicare law, another Kerry target. Kerry's campaign is circulating Flake's recent remark that Congress would not have passed the Bush Medicare law if members had been told of its projected cost. The Office of Management and Budget estimated the law would cost about $130 billion more than advertised, but those numbers were kept secret until well after the House passed the legislation by one vote. The flap over the Medicare number threatens to turn the law into a campaign liability for Bush.

    'Reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis'
    On Sunday, Hagel, a maverick Republican with a reputation similar to McCain's for speaking his mind, criticized the Bush campaign ad that called Kerry "weak on defense." Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Hagel said: "The facts just don't measure [up to] the rhetoric." He said it is unfair to isolate one or two votes over a 19-year career to make such a sweeping assessment of Kerry. "You can . . . take any of us, and pick out the different votes, and then try to manufacture something around it," he said.

    Grover Norquist, a GOP lobbyist close to the White House, said, "McCain is just full of bitterness. Hagel is McCain's only friend in the Senate."


    How sweet it is!

    More
    Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

    "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

  • #2
    Thats great that those guys are exposing the Bush rhetoric.

    I like to think that there is a "tipping point" when you get enough people with enough credibility like Clarke, that O"Neil guy, Republican members of Congress, etc., that all call Bush on his bullshit, that people finally start believing it.

    Some people, of course, will always stand by Bush no matter what.
    “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

    Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

    Comment


    • #3
      Some people, of course, will always stand by Bush no matter what.
      Razzy, if I could only figure that part out. Do you have any thought as to why?
      Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

      "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nick2@Mar 23 2004, 10:39 AM
        Some people, of course, will always stand by Bush no matter what.
        Razzy, if I could only figure that part out. Do you have any thought as to why?
        It's not so much wanting to stand by Bush, but the dislike of democratic ideas.
        Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Razzy@Mar 23 2004, 10:14 AM
          Thats great that those guys are exposing the Bush rhetoric.

          I like to think that there is a "tipping point" when you get enough people with enough credibility like Clarke, that O"Neil guy, Republican members of Congress, etc., that all call Bush on his bullshit, that people finally start believing it.

          Some people, of course, will always stand by Bush no matter what.
          Hmmmm... Rueters has a column out today that expands on what I said...

          http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4635293

          Analysis: Iraq Charges Against Bush Begin to Mount
          Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:50 AM ET
          Printer Friendly | Email Article | Purchase for Reprint (Page 1 of 2)
          Top News
          Clarke Denies Playing Election-Year Politics
          U.S. Officials Before 9/11 Panel on Threat Handling
          Highest-Level U.S. Visitor to Libya in 30 Years


          MORE

          By Alan Elsner
          WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Criticism of President Bush's motives and decision-making in attacking Iraq last year may be acquiring critical mass with voters following criticism by former top counterterrorism official Richard Clarke.

          Political consultants and analysts said Clarke's allegation that Bush ignored the al Qaeda threat before the Sept. 11 attacks and was obsessed by a desire to invade Iraq were especially damaging because they confirmed other previous revelations from policy insiders.

          "Each of these revelations adds to the others so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the message gets reinforced with voters," said Richard Rosecrance, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

          Before Clarke, there was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who asserted in a book published in January that Bush began laying the groundwork for an attack on Iraq from the moment he took office.

          Then came the bombshell from former weapons inspector David Kay that the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that Bush launched the war to find and destroy probably did not exist.

          Kay on Tuesday warned that U.S. credibility at home and abroad was in grave danger and urged the Bush administration to own up to its intelligence failures.

          "We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events," he said. "The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing around Washington ... is the belief ... you can never admit you're wrong."

          Earlier this month, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix added to the fire by accusing Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of "exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support (for the war) they would not otherwise have had."

          The response from the White House, especially to Clarke, has been fierce and sometimes personal. It rejects any suggestion that Bush, running for re-election this year as a "war president," failed to take the al Qaeda threat seriously.

          "The administration can huff and puff but if there are enough bricks in the structure, they can't blow the house down any more," said American University historian Allan Lichtman.

          "Right now, you have quite a number of bricks. It's not just scaffolding any more," he said.

          BAD TIMING
          Clarke's bombshell came at an awkward time for Bush. His presidential re-election campaign was just picking up momentum after being on the defensive for most of this year. His attacks on his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, seemed to be finding the mark.

          Now, he is back on the defensive again.

          "Bush has chosen national security and his response to the terrorist attack as a cornerstone of his campaign and now comes this guy Clarke, their guy, who says that the administration was intentionally or unintentionally not paying enough attention to the terrorist threat," said Rick Davis, a Republican political consultant.

          With the economy struggling, Bush's strongest asset is his claim to be a strong leader best equipped to protect the country in a "war on terrorism."

          "If people start to doubt that claim and if the message from Clarke and O'Neill and others begins to stick, it would seriously weaken Bush on his strongest point," said Fordham University political scientist Tom DeLuca.

          The administration response has usually been to try to destroy the reputations of its critics. It suggested O'Neill had illegally used classified documents and said he was motivated by sour grapes after having been forced to resign from the Cabinet. A Treasury probe has cleared him of misusing documents.

          Similarly, White House aides said Clarke was bitter about having been denied a promotion and "out of the loop" in the administration. They also said he was a closet Democrat working as a proxy for Bush's presidential opponent, John Kerry.

          "This administration has shown a tremendous ability to demonize its opponents. But at some point, people start to ask themselves, could all these people be pathological liars? At some point, they can't all be liars," said Democratic consultant Michael Goldman.
          “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

          Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nick2@Mar 23 2004, 10:39 AM
            Some people, of course, will always stand by Bush no matter what.
            Razzy, if I could only figure that part out. Do you have any thought as to why?
            Nick,

            I think the people that will blindly support Bush no matter what are the evangelists who believe that Bush is "following the plan of God for this great nation".

            Its sort of the same mindset decribed in my signature by Franken.
            “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

            Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Razzy+Mar 23 2004, 10:51 AM-->
              QUOTE (Razzy @ Mar 23 2004, 10:51 AM)

            • #8
              Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 23 2004, 10:54 AM-->
              QUOTE (BurnKU @ Mar 23 2004, 10:54 AM)
              Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:51 AM

            • #9
              The biggest reason I vote Democratic is because I am 100% opposed to the Neo-Con, Bible-based ideals that the largest and most loyal of the Republican base want to run this country on.

              LMAO........Perhaps you could give a percentage figure for this "majority"..........I don't know many myself...........

              That same statement could be used to describe the left.............Academic-elitist ideals that the largest and most loyal of the Democratic base want to run this country on............

              I know you live near Springfield Razz........Believe me it's not representative of the reste of the country.............
              AKA reddevil
              AKA davel a devil

              [COLOR=red'][/COLOR]

              Comment


              • #10
                Originally posted by davel@Mar 23 2004, 11:15 AM
                The biggest reason I vote Democratic is because I am 100% opposed to the Neo-Con, Bible-based ideals that the largest and most loyal of the Republican base want to run this country on.

                LMAO........Perhaps you could give a percentage figure for this "majority"..........I don't know many myself...........

                That same statement could be used to describe the left.............Academic-elitist ideals that the largest and most loyal of the Democratic base want to run this country on............

                I know you live near Springfield Razz........Believe me it's not representative of the reste of the country.............
                I know from reading the book "Two Americas" that the largest and most loyal Republican demographic group are the evangelists. 80% of them vote for the Republican presidential candidate. I dont know the exact number, but I do know that they are the largest and most loyal.

                There are likely other sources aside from the book online somewhere. Maybe I'll do a search later.
                “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

                Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

                Comment


                • #11
                  PS - I didnt say that those people made up the MAJORITY of the Republicans, but I did say that they are the largest (meaning demographic group) and most loyal of said demographic group (80% Republican)
                  “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

                  Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by Razzy@Mar 23 2004, 11:05 AM

                    The biggest reason I vote Democratic is because I am 100% opposed to the Neo-Con, Bible-based ideals that the largest and most loyal of the Republican base want to run this country on.
                    Why? Why are you 100 percent oppoosed?

                    I'm just asking....


                    Thanks

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      I"m just for getting poor performers out of office-- you know, like fired!

                      Where's Donald Trump when you need him?
                      Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

                      "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Blacks vote near 90% Democratic........Do they make up a majority of the Democratic party..........Republicans are not a majority evangelist........And their "ideals" are not the final say..........I know very few conservatives who believe the bible line for government..........
                        AKA reddevil
                        AKA davel a devil

                        [COLOR=red'][/COLOR]

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by Razzy+Mar 23 2004, 11:05 AM-->
                          QUOTE (Razzy @ Mar 23 2004, 11:05 AM)
                          Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:54 AM
                          Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:51 AM
                          Working...
                          X