[Ninong]

...Ronald Reagan's campaign theme from 1980?

You remember 1980, don't you? Reagan had one question that he asked in every single speech over and over again:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

[schrocat]

good point!

[schrocat]

hen speakers at the Republican convention discuss Senator John Kerry's service in Vietnam, they use words like "respect," as Rudolph W. Giuliani did on Monday, giving nary a hint of the unsubstantiated charges by a veteran's group that Mr. Kerry lied to get his war medals, which dominated the campaign for two weeks before the convention began.

But the charges are coursing through the convention like an undertow, a key topic of conversation at parties, hotels and on the convention floor. Party elders and campaign officials are not above delving into some of the criticisms raised by the veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Even leading Republicans said yesterday that things went a little too far when they had to publicly repudiate the actions of a delegate who was handing out adhesive bandages marked with Purple Hearts to mock Mr. Kerry's war wounds.

The bandages, distributed by Morton Blackwell of Arlington, Va., included a message that read, "It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it." Mr. Blackwell said he was only trying to have fun, but the Military Order of The Purple Heart, an organization that says it represents wounded veterans, was not amused.

The group's national commander, Robert N. Lichtenberger, said his 38,000 members were "outraged that an award that has been earned by them for shedding blood on the battlefields of the world would be so denigrated by using it for the purpose of political advantage."

A group spokesman said Mr. Lichtenberg would send letters of protest to Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, who personally persuaded Mr. Blackwell to stop handing out the bandages.

The Bush campaign and the party said they had nothing to do with the bandages and did not approve.

But even as they sought to distance themselves from the bandages, leading Republicans reprised a central accusation from the Swift boat group, which has said Mr. Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1971 hurt American troops.

"It was inappropriate," Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, said of the bandages on CNN. But, he added, "I understand why some people who were in Vietnam feel very strongly about what Senator Kerry did and said when he came back."

When Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, was asked about the bandages on CNN yesterday he also said they were inappropriate but said, "I have more controversy and questions about what he said after he came back because of the very issue of how it's seen by veterans at that point in time."

Delegates carrying copies of the group's book, "Unfit for Command," are a regular sight in the convention hall. At a breakfast meeting at the Hilton in New York yesterday where Mr. Rove was the featured speaker, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania held up the book as recommended reading.

The Bush campaign has sought to distance itself from the Swift boat group, which got initial funding from prominent Bush supporters and legal advice from a former top outside counsel to the Bush campaign. And Bush aides said they were sticking by their refusal to question Mr. Kerry's service.

"When Mayor Giuliani commended Mr. Kerry's service from the floor of the convention, he was greeted with applause," said Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman.

But, he added, "A great many veterans have said that John Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971 was extremely hurtful and troubling and they have earned their right to participate in the political process."

Democrats accuse the Bush campaign of trying to have its cake and eat it too, by saying it has nothing to do with the group, while at the same time trying to keep the attacks on the Democratic nominee's military record alive.

"They say that they're not engaging in attack politics," said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry, "and then someone close to them launches their attack."

As evidence, Democrats pointed to remarks by Mr. Bush last week that he did not believe that Mr. Kerry lied about his war record, the central thrust of the Swift boat group's charges. Those were followed this week by comments by Laura Bush that she did not believe the group's advertisements were "unfair," and by Mr. Bush's father that the group's claims were "rather compelling."

One Republican strategist at the convention, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the comments by Mr. Bush's father and the first lady were not planned. They were simply responding to questions and were speaking their minds, he said.

"You're talking about the dad and the wife of somebody who's had the hell beaten out of him," he said, referring to advertisements from Democratic groups against Mr. Bush. "For once in history a little beating goes the other way."

The strategist acknowledged that the campaign did not seem to mind the attacks. "Of course they want it out there, and it's been effective," he said. "The ideal situation is the president can be against, it but those who love him can be for it, it helps."

Democrats, however, went on the offensive, trying to stoke voter anger over the bandages, which they said raised unfair questions about all Purple Heart winners. They provided reporters with statements from veterans denouncing the bandages as insults to all who served.

The Democratic National Committee also highlighted statements by Mr. Blackwell that he had known Mr. Rove for decades.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Blackwell said he had helped train Mr. Rove as a Republican organizer when Mr. Rove was still in high school. Mr. Rove said on CNN that Mr. Blackwell had in fact been a political opponent at one point.

While some delegates said they disapproved of the bandages, they echoed the notion that Mr. Kerry's antiwar comments were fair game.

Leona Johnston, an alternate from Fountain Hills, Ariz., said "I think it's unfortunate that these men who have made the ads about John Kerry have had their reputations impugned by John Kerry."

The controversy is not likely to go away. The Swift boat group yesterday released a new advertisement, this one criticizing Mr. Kerry for taking part in a ceremony in 1971 at which antiwar veterans threw away combat medals.

[Ninong]

The Republicans seem intent on pushing the idea that the world is a safer place now thanks to George W. Bush. Boy, is that a stretch! Do you feel safer now than you did four years ago?

I understand that besides telling us how much safer we are, the president will tell us about his plans for restructuring Social Security, the tax code and health care. Hmmm... That's the same speech he gave four years ago -- except for the part about being safer.

Meanwhile, here are some examples of what actually transpired for the U.S. economy during Bush's term in office.

-- There are currently 1.1 million fewer jobs than in January 2001, placing Bush on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to end his term with a net job loss.

-- Inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen by $1,535, or 3. 4 percent, during the past three years to $43,318, according to Census figures released last week.

-- Average hourly earnings rose by 1.9 percent during the past 12 months, according to the Labor Department. Consumer prices, however, have climbed by about 3 percent.

-- Home ownership is up thanks mainly to low interest rates. But easy credit has also led to record consumer debt ($2.038 trillion) and record personal bankruptcy filings (1.7 million in 2003).

-- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, according to Census figures. The rate of child poverty climbed to 17.6 percent, while nearly a quarter of all African Americans are now below the poverty line.

-- The number of Americans lacking health insurance increased to a record 45 million last year from 43.6 million in 2002.

-- The White House is projecting a record budget deficit this year of $445 billion. When Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for three straight years and was running a surplus of $236 billion -- the largest in U.S. history.

[Ninong]

Adam Kutny, a 12-year-old gifted alto from Poland, just wanted to study singing with the Pacific Boychoir Academy. Request denied, said Homeland Security, because there's no absolute proof that Adam is not a terrorist who can hit the high notes. Meanwhile, puberty is right around the corner.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Adam Kutny, a 12-year-old gifted alto from Poland, just wanted to study singing with the Pacific Boychoir Academy. Request denied, said Homeland Security, because there's no absolute proof that Adam is not a terrorist who can hit the high notes. Meanwhile, puberty is right around the corner.

He looks pretty damn violent imo.

[Ninong]

...one of the self-proclaimed market geniuses, Jon Markham.

(Note to self: Stop reading this crap! They are almost never right even when they are telling us what they really believe to be the truth and most of the time they are just pumping stock.)

It goes without saying that this guy is convinced that Bush will be re-elected and he is offering his advice on which stocks will be in favor if Bush wins and which will be in favor if Kerry wins. (Note: This is an actual article in MSN Money and it is written as serious advice. It is not intended as satire. I have to say that because any reasonable person might think the guy is just joking.)

From MSN Contributing Editor, Jon Markham (Formerly managing editor of MSN Money, Markman is senior investment strategist and portfolio manager at Pinnacle Investment Advisors):

Energy is an obvious Bush choice, since he is the prince of the oil patch and drillers would continue to have an operational field day in a second Bush administration. But basic materials, such as chemical manufacturers and forest products companies, should also see their fortunes improve as environmental regulations are recklessly loosened, lowering the cost of doing business. They may also finally see asbestos liabilities cleared away in a more sympathetic, devil-may-care second term. I’ve covered energy stocks to death; here are top candidates in chemicals and forest products.

I won't list his recommendations, you will have to follow the link at the bottom if you actually want to read them. I guess his point is that if Bush is re-elected, companies like Halliburton et al. will really sock it to us. Steal while the stealing's good so to speak.

Now look at how he describes what to him is an unthinkable alternative, the election of John Kerry:

It’s pretty hard to pinpoint stock groups that would prosper under Kerry, but we can guess that if the effete, elite champion of the downtrodden fulfilled his promise to create more jobs, the money would filter down to the recently trashed small discount retail chains. Also, on the other side of his psycho-social spectrum, we’ll give him the latte and white-wine stocks, as well as ones representing his major backers in Hollywood and the big media. Plus you've got to give him at least one French stock.

Nothing like unbiased financial advice. Besides, didn't Bush promise us three years ago that his tax cuts would create a minimum of four million new jobs and result in a net increase in federal tax revenues? And weren't the benefits supposed to filter down (real Republicans say trickle down) to the downtrodden? Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Here is the moron's article: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P91859.asp

[Ninong]

The Repubs are pushing for two new amendments to the constitution! One to ban gay marriage and one to ban abortion.

They not only want to ban gay marriage, they want to ban civil unions and outlaw the payment of any benefits to domestic partners. They're several years late on that last bit because most companies already provide benefits to domestic partners.

There would be no criminal penalties for women seeking an abortion because they have compassion for them even though they themselves would never, ever find themselves or anyone they know in such a predicament; however, there would be ample criminal penalties for anyone providing abortion services at any stage of pregnancy. So what are they suggesting? DIY abortions? Which would be criminal since they want to extend all of the protections of the fourteenth amendment to the "unborn child" from the moment of conception, which they refer to as "any stage of life." It would appear that what they are saying is that the act of seeking an abortion would not be a criminal offense because they would then have an opportunity to persuade the mother to choose adoption instead but abortion itself would be equivalent to murder and the criminal penalties would be the same. That's where the part about the extension of full coverage of the fourteenth amendment comes into play.

Personally, I think abortions past the first trimester are not something to be considered unless the mother's health is at risk but I'm not about to tell someone they should think the same as I do, especially when it's her body and not mine. (P.S. -- Obviously the part about no criminal penalties for the mother will allow women who can afford it to discretely leave the country to avail themselves of the services of competent medical professionals should the need arise.)

Their platform is 92 pages. Just skip to pages 83 and 84 for confirmation of their position on the two new constitutional amendments. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Se...04platform.pdf

P.S. -- I wonder why they stuck both of those "little" planks in there dead last?

[schrocat]

That's the clincher for me Nin.
The fact that the wording of all their proposed abortion legislation is without protection for the health of the mother, and contrary to what they would have you believe, they feel rape victims should be forced to have the offspring created by a total stranger...or worse.
...because a priest said so.

Personally, I think the Romans were on to something with those lions.

[Ninong]

Their national platform is not as laughable as the 2000 Texas State Republican platform but it is revealing that they chose to feature speakers such as Ah-nult in prime time. He favors protection of a woman's right to choose and he favors allowing individual states to regulate their own marriage laws.

Too bad they didn't let Pat Buchanan give the keynote address. He would have been much more representative of the extreme right wing fanatics that are in control of the Republican Party.

[schrocat]

...and by the way.
Enough time has passed for me to be able to comment on McCain's sellout speech the other night.

The "core" could care less if he turns the other cheek.
I am certain they feel the New Testament is filled with whimps and Liberals.

[Marino13]

Anyone dumb enough to get duped by Kerry deserves what they get. Kerry is the candidate of the dumb, deservedly poor (due to own stupidity) and did I say stupid?, Downtrodden dregs of this country. That should tell you something right there.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Marino13

Anyone dumb enough to get duped by Kerry deserves what they get. Kerry is the candidate of the dumb, deservedly poor (due to own stupidity) and did I say stupid?, Downtrodden dregs of this country. That should tell you something right there.

...poor people are stupid downtrodden dregs.

Got it.

[LazyReef]

Ever been to battle for your country or are you a pussy like Georgie?