PDA

View Full Version : New Kerry Campaign Slogan


dude1394
03-17-2004, 11:12 PM
I predict he may be saying this a lot.


"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

Drbio
03-18-2004, 12:53 AM
*hahaha*

Mavdog
03-18-2004, 10:25 AM
The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...

Dooby
03-18-2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...


This is such BS. This is not how the Senate works.

Mavdog
03-18-2004, 01:13 PM
this is such BS. This is not how the Senate works

Really Dooby? Just how does it "work" then?

Perhaps you'd like to read kerry's position on the vote:

"The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.

The Administration has wasted every opportunity to build an international coalition in Iraq.

With our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the President needs to change course. But rather than putting in place a real plan, he has spent months drifting and zigzagging. Rather than immediately building a real coalition, he has fought to keep unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.

America's national security requires a muscular strategy that brings freedom and prosperity to post-war Iraq, stability to the region, and advances our basic values and ideals. And I will gladly and proudly vote for any proposal this President offers that protects the troops and provides an effective plan to win the peace.

But I oppose spending $87 billion - at the expense of health care, education and domestic priorities here at home - on a strategy that does not protect the troops, and does not make America safer."

or how about a news article discussing the amendments added:

" WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (AFP) - The Republican-dominated US Senate Friday overwhelmingly approved President George W. Bush's supplemental budget request for 85 billion dollars to finance military deployment and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate's 87-12 vote followed a 303-125 approval of the measure earlier in the day in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with 74 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the bill.

The Senate late Thursday night had watered down Bush's request with an amendment requiring Baghdad to pay back half of the 20.3 billion dollars earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction.

On Friday, prior to passing the bill, it trimmed another 1.9 billion dollars with an amendment cutting expenses it deemed unnecessary, including creation of a postal code system for Iraq and construction of a 50, 000-dollar-a-bed prison.

The House voted down amendments that would have created reconstruction loans to Iraq.

However, it did make cuts totalling 1.9 billion dollars to the reconstruction funds, but transferred the money to the military side, and to Afghan aid and indemnification of hurricane Isabel damage to military bases on the US East Coast.

The bulk of the allocation, some 66 billion dollars destined to finance military deployment, went largely uncontested. However the 20.3 billion for reconstruction of war-torn Iraq was the object of tense debate in both houses.

The two versions of the measure now go to a House-Senate reconciliation committee to iron out the differences and produce a single bill."

So, it is clear that there ARE multiple votes on bills, and a Senator can vote both FOR a bill and then AGAINST a bill in a later form.

Dooby
03-18-2004, 01:39 PM
He voted against it. Period. End of story. Good night. Coincidentally, isno

There is only one role call vote. He voted against it. That is the vote that counts. Kerry was one of twelve senators to vote against it. This is that ridiculous vote where, Kerry after voting for the war and seeing that Dean was getting a ton of mileage from the anti-war position, started drifting that way. So he voted against it so he could gain traction in the primary. He needs to learn to live with that. What you say and do in the primary comes back in the general election. It is a fact of life.

Of course it is also funny that Kerry bothered to show up. I guess it was because he got to vote on Iraq. He only missed 64% of all rollcall votes in 2003. BTW, in 2004, he hasn't bothered to show up for a single rollcall vote (0 for 22). This little dig is going to pop up soon as GOP spin on that subject-that Dole had the decency to resign from the Senate, while Kerry continues to earn a paycheck.

This is also the stupid vote where the Dems' thought it would be clever to make the rebuilding of Iraq into the form of loans. Nevermind, that for accounting purposes, the GBO and the CBO would each have written off the loan immediately for federal accounting purposes; never mind that the loans, assuming they were repaid, would be done so out of oil exports, which would have been a PR disaster for the USA; and nevermind that everybody knows we would have been asked to forgive the loans in 10 years anyway.

Edit: my mistake, Kerry did make 1 vote 2 weeks ago and has missed 2 more (1 for 25 now).

madape
03-18-2004, 01:57 PM
Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?

Dooby
03-18-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by: madape
Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?


No. Senators miss votes all the time. I wish they didn't, but they do. To say Kerry was AWOL would be an indictment of about half the senate. But 64% is an awful lot.

Of course, I never worked for the Senate, just the house. The congressman I worked for never missed a vote during his term while I worked there. And there are a lot more house votes than senate votes.

dude1394
03-18-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...


You are durn right the statement is correct. And that's why it's so stupid. Here he is bashing bush for sending guys "unprepared" and the one chance he has to fix it he votes against it.

Then THIS is his explanation. The dude is toast.

And kerry being a fiscal conservative is another load of bull. Go look at his latest proposal. He intends to spend an extra 400 billion and pay for it by raising taxes and extra 200 billion.

As usual the dims and libs have to lie their way through the election until they get in office so they can change once they get there. Even if he said he was going to cut the size of government by 50% all of the libs would stand up and cheer because they would know good and well that's he doesn't mean it.

Here is the most liberal senator from Massachusetts and of course he has to run away from his record because no one will vote in an ultra-liberal. The dimocrat party has no agenda except buying votes. It's been that way since JFK.

dude1394
03-18-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by: madape
Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?


I got it ape. I wonder if the media will insist that he release all of his records. Where WAS he when all those votes were taken.

Dooby
03-18-2004, 02:18 PM
Mavdog, you don't get to say Kerry is a fiscal conservative. That is a term with a specific connotation. If you want to say Kerry is more "fiscally responsible", that is fine. We can debate that. But the notion that Kerry is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

Semantics? Yes. But it drives me nuts.

dude1394
03-18-2004, 02:19 PM
GREATNESS!!! I just saw the Presidents Ad highlighting the Kerry vote against supporting our troops food, material needs in Iraq. They have edited it already and what is on the end.

And what does John Kerry have to say about it
""I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

Pretty nimble!! Greatness.

No waiting for the NYTimes for Kerry or the LATimes for Kerry to put it in their papers.

Mavdog
03-18-2004, 02:23 PM
Actually he had a couple of "chances" to vote for additional $ for Iraq. Some were yes votes, some were no votes. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned using Senate votes as campaign fodder. Very problematic as it isn't a clear vote most times due to the baggage of amendments.

I don't disagre that BOTH Bush and Kerry are proposing more goverment spending...what is interesting is that Kerry has stated where he's going to come up with the $ to balance the spending. Bush hasn't, hence he is abandoning the traditional conservative platform of fiscal responsibility.

As far as "buying votes", that tradition goes back to Jefferson when they were called the Democratic-Republican Party. Both the parties play that game...

Mavdog
03-18-2004, 02:30 PM
dooby, if you feel that there are "specific connotation" to being a fiscal conservative, how does the Bush budget's stack up with that "connotation"?

from what I see, he isn't quite walking the walk...

BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on!i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Drbio
03-18-2004, 04:07 PM
Waffles anyone?

Drbio
03-18-2004, 04:08 PM
BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on! i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Perhaps your company isn't receiving a full effort from you then? I know a certain senator with the same problem.

Dooby
03-18-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
dooby, if you feel that there are "specific connotation" to being a fiscal conservative, how does the Bush budget's stack up with that "connotation"?

from what I see, he isn't quite walking the walk...

BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on!i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Long, rambling rant follows:

IMO, about half of everything the President does is a no-brainer. Regardless of who is in office, you are going to get the same result. Example: Clinton campaign in 92 in his stump speech and position papers that the USA could make due with two less carriers and suggested either mothballing the two oldest or cancelling the contract on 2 that were unbuilt; after he won, a nice little briefing from the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs and the existing nat'l security advisor was arranged for Clinton and his skeleton crew of a cabinet. Clinton walked out of that meeting scrapping the idea of eliminating two carrier groups. Why? Because at a fundamental level, the idea was idiocy. That is one example.

Another is Nafta; Bush's state department negotiated it (over the objections of half his base), Clinton pushed it through (over the objections of half his base). Why? Cause it was really a no-brainer. Despite its problems, nobody in office is willing to say it should be repealed.

Another: Reagan was against turning over the Panama canal, as Carter promised to do. He campaigned on it. After election, Reagan backpedaled. Why? Because the people in the government that are smarter than the people that come and go, went to Reagan and his people and said that the Canal cost too much money and was of no strategic value because (i) too risky to move an aircraft carrier through it; and (ii) an supertanker won't fit through it.

The point is this: After 9/11, no matter who was President (even Nader)(OK, maybe not Nader, but I do think Perot would do it), we were going to return to deficit spending. It was inevitable. It was probably inevitable regardless of 9/11 in the short term.

So I don't fault Bush for deficit spending, though I abhor the deficit and abhor the national debt. Truth of the matter is that if Gore were president, instead of cutting taxes, he'd have "temporarily committed to deficit spending to get through this trying time in our history." We are not running a deficit solely because of the tax cuts, a big chunk of it is the spending that Kerry voted for, too.

So, who am I voting for? Well that is for the other 50%-the part of the presidency that isn't a no-brainer. The difference between Clinton launching a couple of cruise missiles and Kerry's opinion on the war on terror being "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation" and Bush sending troops to Afghanistan. Clinton launched some missiles and hit nothing and put a sheik in jail for 240 years, and less than 10 years later, the same people blew up the same people, killing thousands more than the first attempt.

dude1394
03-18-2004, 04:26 PM
You go Dooby!!!

Mavdog
03-18-2004, 04:56 PM
The point is this: After 9/11, no matter who was President (even Nader)(OK, maybe not Nader, but I do think Perot would do it), we were going to return to deficit spending. It was inevitable. It was probably inevitable regardless of 9/11 in the short term.

I'm not totally on board with your conclusion.

The increase in federal spending resulting from 9/11 were primarily a) the invasion of Afganistan and b) the forming and staffing of the D of Homeland Security. The War was not very costly due to the short battle time and also because we had an intl coalition who shared and continue to share the costs. The creation of a new federal dept is the major expense and IMHO the funds should have been sourced from existing appropriations in other depts who previously had the responsibility. This was not done as the existing depts stayed fully funded while addl money was spent, and at the same time revenues were decreased due to the tax changes/rebates.

Now, don't get me wrong, we need to spend the $ to be as fully capable of defending us domestically as needed to accomplish the goal. We need to see a belt tightening in current spending in other depts. that just wasn't addressed, and the feds need to rescend portions of the tax cuts programmed for the next couple of years.

That would be fiscally conservative in my book.

Dooby
03-18-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

The point is this: After 9/11, no matter who was President (even Nader)(OK, maybe not Nader, but I do think Perot would do it), we were going to return to deficit spending. It was inevitable. It was probably inevitable regardless of 9/11 in the short term.

I'm not totally on board with your conclusion.

The increase in federal spending resulting from 9/11 were primarily a) the invasion of Afganistan and b) the forming and staffing of the D of Homeland Security. The War was not very costly due to the short battle time and also because we had an intl coalition who shared and continue to share the costs. The creation of a new federal dept is the major expense and IMHO the funds should have been sourced from existing appropriations in other depts who previously had the responsibility. This was not done as the existing depts stayed fully funded while addl money was spent, and at the same time revenues were decreased due to the tax changes/rebates.

Now, don't get me wrong, we need to spend the $ to be as fully capable of defending us domestically as needed to accomplish the goal. We need to see a belt tightening in current spending in other depts. that just wasn't addressed, and the feds need to rescend portions of the tax cuts programmed for the next couple of years.

That would be fiscally conservative in my book.


Oh, I agree. That would fiscally conservative in my book. But, quite frankly, nobody would have gone for it. You can't cut justice by a fifth and turn over all border patrol and INS activity to Homeland Security; you can't just split the FBI in two-terrorist and non-terrorist. It isn't just that Homeland Security has taken over responsibility, it is the added responsibility-federalized all airline security, costing millions and adding 5% to the federal payroll (a guess); hell, we used to check maybe 1 in 200 cargo containers, if that.

Plus, don't forget we bailed out the airlines to a great extent. And we are still spending millions in Afghanastan.

dude1394
03-21-2004, 07:17 PM
March 19 — In an interview several weeks before he voted against $87 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seemed to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops.

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

dude1394
03-28-2004, 12:02 PM
Flip-flopper (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=35179)

Murdering’ troops?
What could Kerry have meant?


BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were “murdered by the United States of America.” Now he says he didn’t mean “murdered” and wasn’t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?

After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry’s “murdered” comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks,” clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.

Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry’s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.

But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry “never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.” If he wasn’t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?

Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying — or both. We think both.

Mavdog
03-28-2004, 02:12 PM
If this period of Kerry's life is germaine to the present candidacy as you must feel it is, to be consistent the same examination should be undertaken on just what GWBush was doing at that stage of his life.

Are you for investigating like that? Shall we spend time discussing any rumored DWIs and that Natl Guard service?

I don't believe so, that was in their youth, but evidently you see it as important. You're not going to be hypocritical are you?

dude1394
03-28-2004, 03:41 PM
Are you honestly saying that bush's earlier life hasn't been put through a microscope. But yea if he was calling american soldiers murderers all the while touting out his vietnam credentials then sure his record is pertinent. If he didn't tell us how important his time in vietnam was every third sentence them possibly there wouldn't be nearly as much interest.

I guess it's dirty politics to reprint someones statements. The dims would certainly LIKE for that to be true this election.

Mavdog
03-28-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Are you honestly saying that bush's earlier life hasn't been put through a microscope.

It's been looked at and it has also been shielded.


But yea if he was calling american soldiers murderers all the while touting out his vietnam credentials then sure his record is pertinent. If he didn't tell us how important his time in vietnam was every third sentence them possibly there wouldn't be nearly as much interest.

The atmosphere in America was different 30 years ago, the war made extremists on both sides. Kerry most likely was referring to the massive loss of life, including those from american ordinance.

Looking at what they said that long ago doesn't really say much about their thoughts of today. For instance, we know that 30 years ago GWBush was an unmotivated so called party guy. Does that mean he's not a serious, conservative person today?


I guess it's dirty politics to reprint someones statements. The dims would certainly LIKE for that to be true this election.

No one said anything about "dirty", just unimportant. I did say that if you throw out Kerry's conduct or comments from 30 years ago, don't cry when GWBush's history is hung out there for target practice.

dude1394
03-28-2004, 06:14 PM
Bush's record has been scrubbed and everything he's done from a dui ~20 years ago to "supposed" drug use to "supposed" awol has been run up the flag for the last 8 years. (4 in texas and another 4 now).

It's convenient that you say the atmosphere is america was different with respect to his radical anti-american opinions but it's somehow relevant when he can (and does constantly) wrap himself up in his service then. But it's typical kerry wanting it both ways.

Mavdog
03-29-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Bush's record has been scrubbed and everything he's done from a dui ~20 years ago to "supposed" drug use to "supposed" awol has been run up the flag for the last 8 years. (4 in texas and another 4 now).

It's convenient that you say the atmosphere is america was different with respect to his radical anti-american opinions but it's somehow relevant when he can (and does constantly) wrap himself up in his service then. But it's typical kerry wanting it both ways.

Ironic that you use the term "scrubbed" which connotes a cleaning, which is most likely exactly what has happened to those records of long ago. I remain of the opinion that each candidate's past is merely interesting rather than important.

The phraseology of "radical anti-american opinions" takes me back to the days of vietnam protests. The quotes are not "radical" nor are they "anti-american". Yeah, there were those misguided folk who proclaimed "America love it or leave it" (now THAT'S "anti-american" in my book) to silence the dissent of those who truly love their country enough to speak out when the country's leadership was taking our country down the wrong road. This was certainly the case in the Vietnam conflict and those who spoke out, such as Kerry, deserve our thanks for showing what a democracy is all about.

Kerry put his life at risk in that war; he, like anyone else who was ready to give his life to their country, has earned the right to "wrap himself up in his service" if he so chooses.

dude1394
03-31-2004, 06:56 PM
Great new T-Shirt aligning with Kerry's campaign slogan.


http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/kerry_flip_flops.jpg

Mavdog
03-31-2004, 10:17 PM
the photo of kerry in a keffiyeh is interesting. I guess that you'd find a photo of GWBush in a nazi hat just as funny, right?

dude1394
04-02-2004, 12:34 AM
Well quite frankly I'm not sure what a "keffiyeh" is but if you are saying that this is the same as putting bush=hitler and bush-nazi on the peacenik signs I don't agree with you. Unless it is your opinion that all arabs wearing the "keffiyeh" are worse than hitler and the nazis?? Not really sure if I agree with your comparison.

Mavdog
04-02-2004, 11:48 AM
Well quite frankly I'm not sure what a "keffiyeh" is but if you are saying that this is the same as putting bush=hitler and bush-nazi on the peacenik signs I don't agree with you. Unless it is your opinion that all arabs wearing the "keffiyeh" are worse than hitler and the nazis?? Not really sure if I agree with your comparison.

The keffiyeh is the Palestinian headress that was put onto the photo of Kerry. I'm making an assumption here but Kerry has probably NEVER had one on. This is what Arafat always wears, and also the PLO etc. So the intention of the graphic is to tie Kerry to Arafat, as a "brother" of Arafat/PLO by way of the headress. Get it?

The analogy is that most of America sees Arafat as a terrorist, a killer of innocent people. That's similar to showing Bush with Hitler (as was shown on this site a week or so ago) or a Nazi cap. I'm not suggesting who is the "worse", that's not the point at all.

So, I'm guessing that since you see the Kerry graphic as acceptable and funny, the same treatment of Bush would be just as acceptable and funny, right? There's nothing wrong with putting a Nazi cap on Bush's photo, right?

Dooby
04-02-2004, 12:00 PM
Great line from the NRC yesterday. Kerry challenged Bush to debates and the Bush campaing pointed out that it is a little early for that. But an RNC spokesman suggested that Kerry go on television and debate with himself over his contradictory positions.

dude1394
04-02-2004, 10:36 PM
I'm not quite so sure that Yaser Arafats "reputation" is quite the same as hitlers. I don't remember hitler getting the Nobel Peace Prize. We could maybe equate Yaser with Jimmy Carter I guess since they are both recipients.

Mavdog
04-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Trying to avoid the question eh? Picking at degrees of infamy doesn't hide the hypocracy.

dude1394
04-02-2004, 11:17 PM
I "understand" your point, I just don't agree that an arab headress has the same connotation. If it was a picture of kerry wearing an explosive vest I would agree with you. But it's a subtle dig and I see it as a dig at Kerry who would probably be the favorite candidate of most arab countries right now because they feel he would be weak on terrorism as well as lenient on other arab regimes.

If you think that is the same as holding up a bush=hitler sign then ok, I do not.

Mavdog
04-02-2004, 11:28 PM
I see it as a dig at Kerry who would probably be the favorite candidate of most arab countries right now because they feel he would be weak on terrorism as well as lenient on other arab regimes

yeah, those Saudis are really upset with GWBush. He just got rid of their enemy, and he did it without the Saudis having to pay for it.
The Kuwaitis? they hated Hussein, and then they get to profit selling (and overcharging us too) the US goods.
The Gulf States? Well, we now lease a naval base/intelligence base from them and there's all those US service people spending $ there.
Egypt? they got a big bump in aid for overflights.
Iran? they aren't Arabs.
Syria? They hate all of us.

Seems that the Arab countries have done just fine under George, I believe they support his re-election so the gravy train stays on track!

dude1394
04-04-2004, 01:43 PM
Kerry and the Communists
By Cliff Kincaid
April 6, 2004

We have been wondering how the major media would handle Senator John Kerry’s cordial relations with the communist Sandinistas who once ruled Nicaragua. Now we have our answer. The March 21st Washington Post ran a story by Glenn Kessler declaring that Kerry was merely “engaging” with them. The whole theme of the article was that Kerry’s foreign policy was one of “engagement.” This story has got to go down in history as a classic in terms of whitewashing a candidate’s record.

Kerry adamantly opposed President Reagan’s policy of preventing a communist takeover of Central America. Evidence showed that communist Cuba and the then-Soviet Union were coordinating a massive assault on the Western hemisphere. Reagan had set them back with the liberation of Grenada and the overthrow of a communist gang there. He was also supporting a resistance movement, known as the Contras, opposing the communist Sandinistas who had taken control of Nicaragua.

In an article in the American Spectator, entitled, “The Bolshevik in Kerry,” George Neumayr wrote, “Kerry’s limousine liberation theology led him into one of the most embarrassing moments of his early Senate career—his disastrous Neville Chamberlain-style diplomacy with Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. Shortly after becoming a Senator, Kerry took off for Nicaragua with Tom Harkin on a free-lancing fact-finding tour, the purpose of which was to stymie congressional support for the Contras by ‘finding’ that the Sandinistas weren't such bad guys after all.”

Kerry said at the time, “We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement without having to militarize the region. The real issue is: Is this administration going to overthrow the government of the Sandinistas no matter what they do?” Neumayr notes that Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz “was so flabbergasted by Kerry’s shilling for Ortega that he denounced Kerry publicly for ‘dealing with the communists’ and letting himself be ‘used.’”

But that’s not how Glenn Kessler of the Post saw it. “Over the years,” he wrote, “Kerry has pushed engagement with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the communists in Vietnam and the mullahs who run Iran.” Kessler wrote that, “Early in his Senate career, in 1985, he riled the Reagan administration by traveling to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandinista government, saying that ‘we've got to create a climate of trust.’” Kessler said that Kerry had “questioned U.S. support for the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

That’s how Kessler sanitized a Kerry policy of appeasing the communists in Nicaragua. If we had followed Kerry’s advice, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and perhaps even Mexico might be communist today. But no thanks to Kerry, pressure from the Contras forced the Sandinistas to hold free elections, which they lost. As a result, the communist insurgency in El Salvador collapsed and assumed the role of a political opposition party. On March 21, that party, led by veteran communist Schafik Handal, lost an election for the presidency. He got about 34 percent of the vote, compared to 58 percent for the conservative. Reagan was right, Kerry was wrong.

Mavdog
04-04-2004, 06:34 PM
Yeah, who is Kerry to actually propose engaging foreign governments in dialogue, actually using personal communication to find how common ground could be made, when armed conflict could be the choice.

Remember that these same Sandinistas yielded power peacefully when they lost the 1990 elections. Amazing what dialogue (like that Kerry was advocating) can lead to.

Of course all we need to do is contrast this approach with the illegal conduct of the Reagan administration was guilty of in Nicaragua.

dude1394
04-11-2004, 12:37 AM
Floppy flops again (http://news-register.net/edit/story/0410202004_edtiedit2.asp)

Kerry Hypocritical On Steel Industry

John Kerry must think Ohio Valley steelworkers won't recognize a politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth - a hypocrite. We can think of no other explanation for his appeal for steelworker votes.
Kerry, who will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president, last week criticized President Bush's policy on tariffs to aid the steel industry.

Specifically, Kerry said Bush was wrong when, in December, he rescinded stiff tariffs being collected on some imported steel products. It should be remembered that, after eight years of inaction by a Democrat president who was content to watch foreign companies wreck the U.S. steel industry, Bush put those tariffs in place in March 2002. They did an enormous amount of good for American steel companies and their employees, including those at Wheeling-Pittsburgh and Weirton steel corporations.

But Kerry, after saying Bush should not have rescinded the tariffs, added that he would not, if elected president, reinstate them. "Tariffs are the clumsiest of the tools" for dealing with unfair trade practices, he said.

To steelworkers, Kerry offered only assurances that he would enforce U.S. laws against "dumping" by foreign steelmakers. The Bush White House already is doing that.

Kerry's lack of a plan is striking. His hypocrisy exposes him as nothing more than a demagogue - certainly not a friend to steelworkers.

Mavdog
04-12-2004, 11:17 AM
So let me get your point straight.

GWBush, who stated that he is a free-trade advocate and would not enact tariffs, does so on steel. Due to the international trade agreements the US is a party to which does not allow these tariffs, as well as the simple truth that these tariffs don't really aid the industry but are a "band aid", GWBush retracts the steel tariffs.

John Kerry goes into these steel areas, tells them he is against the use of tariffs and will address illegal "dumping" in better ways.

Just who is the "flopper"? Clearly it is NOT Kerry but GWBush...

dude1394
04-17-2004, 11:27 AM
April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - An angry John Kerry yesterday raged that the White House has a "twisted sense of ethics and morality" as he faced new TV ads that accuse him of voting against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Senator Kerry the democratic nominee for president lashed out yesterday at the bush white house. Standing tall, upright and forcefully yelling to the crowd.


"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

dude1394
04-19-2004, 09:43 PM
Perhaps on the theory that the best offense is a good defense, John Kerry raised questions about his own patriotism in a Pittsburgh speech Friday, falsely accusing Republicans of attacking it. The Associated Press reports:

"I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance," the Massachusetts senator said. "I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism."

The truth be told, Republicans almost never question Democrats' patriotism. Even if there is reason to question it, to do so would look vicious and unseemly and would almost certainly backfire on the Republican politician who tried it.

Kerry knows this, which is why he (and many Democrats before him) is so eager to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are questioning his patriotism. But anyone who's paying attention knows it's not true, and as we've patiently tried to explain, to accuse someone of attacking your patriotism is to raise questions about it.

But Kerry's Pittsburgh statement is even more ludicrous. Not only does he falsely accuse Rove and Cheney of attacking his patriotism; he actually does attack their patriotism, thereby showing himself to be as vicious and unseemly as the Republicans are not.

dude1394
04-19-2004, 09:51 PM
Can't help it, kerry is just too good.

Here's our favorite passage from John Kerry's interview yesterday on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press":

The Republican Party has spent $50 million in a matter of about seven weeks to distort my record, to completely mislead Americans about me and about my record. Now, we're in a position now to be able to respond and introduce myself to the country. I look forward to that. I look forward to Americans getting to know who I really am.

Let me give you an example. George Bush has no record to run on. He has a record to run away from. He can't come to a city and talk about creating jobs, because he hasn't created them. He's lost them. He can't come anywhere and talk about health care for all Americans, because he has no plan. He can't come and talk about keeping the promise to our children and our schools because he broke it and he doesn't fund it. He can't talk about cleaner air or cleaner water because he's going backwards on those policies.

Yadda yadda yadda. So Kerry's self-definition is "George Bush has no record to run on."

dude1394
04-28-2004, 09:12 PM
Good grief....Did Kerry actually say this on hardball??

Key portion of the Hardball exchange this evening:

Matthews: "If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the 'why?' Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?"

Kerry: "It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and --we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, two months from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were.

What in the WORLD will the democrats do if they do find them? Sounds like he's setting himself up for it to be honest.

dude1394
04-28-2004, 09:18 PM
Lileks (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks042804.html)

....
Alas, the medals flap overshadowed another remark that was more illustrative of Kerry's imprisonment in symbolic politics. He was asked if he had an SUV. He admitted owning a Chrysler 300M, and made a pitch against outsourcing: "I want cars to be made in Michigan, made in America, made" by the United Auto Workers, Kerry said.

The 300M is made in Canada. Oh well. Who can keep track of these things? Then came the telling line about his SUV. He said: "The family has it. I don't have it."

So now we have three separate Kerry Units: JFK himself, whose tax returns and military records are part of the debate; his wife, Teresa, whose tax returns are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS; and "the family," an entity distinct from Kerry and Heinz, a sort of familial blind trust into which he contributes no input. Don't blame him for having an SUV. Blame THE FAMILY.


I'm waiting for his HEEEYAHH moment any day now.

dude1394
05-18-2004, 07:25 PM
Kerry was against releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve...before he announced he was for it.


KERRY FOUR YEARS AGO SAID SPR
WOULDN’T AFFECT GAS PRICES

In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be “Relevant.” “Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,’ he said.” (Cathy Landry, “US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,” Platt’s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)

NOW, HE SAYS THAT NOT FILLING SPR WILL LOWER PRICES

In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. “Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. … ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04)

Mavdog
05-18-2004, 08:56 PM
Of course, the same situation existed in 2000 when Kerry made the statement that is existing today in 2004.
What?
The oil markets are almost double in pricing?
Gas prices are up by almost 60%?
Things are different today?
Oh...perhaps Kerry is right on both statements.

It is hard to understand why the US is filling up the SPR while oil prices are at their highest levels in decades, and the price increase is being attributed to demand, meaning the purchases by the US Gov are adding pressure to the high prices. While the real need to have the full SPR isn't readily apparent to anybody...but maybe those who produce the oil?

dude1394
05-18-2004, 09:04 PM
Well let's think of a few reasons.
Why is the price of oil so high? Maybe because it's because of international instability? Maybe it's because the largest oil producer has had multiple terrorist attacks thereby making the Saudi oil production in peril. Maybe it's because we struggle to keep the Iraqi oil flowing.

Although the price of oil is still historically low, we are supposed to NOT fill up the SPR even in the face of the middle east uncertainty.

Just when you hope that you might see some statesmanship out of Kerry he pulls a McCaullife and Clinton act out of the bag. This is just another example of a democrat doing anything to try and get elected. The sad thing is that Kerry was actually RIGHT when he disagreed with opening the SPR but he's too spineless to keep from keeping a coherent policy on it.

Mavdog
05-18-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Well let's think of a few reasons.
Why is the price of oil so high?

Most say it is due to the high demand, especially from Asia. China itself is now the world's third highest consumer of oil. Indonesia, which is an OPEC member, has begun to import oil. Supply is static, demand is rising fast, prices pushed up.


Maybe because it's because of international instability? Maybe it's because the largest oil producer has had multiple terrorist attacks thereby making the Saudi oil production in peril. Maybe it's because we struggle to keep the Iraqi oil flowing.

Certainly the price has a small degree of "nervous" price pressure, but that is not the reason prices have increased. It's dmand, and the US gov entering the market at this time and buying is ill conceived.


Although the price of oil is still historically low, we are supposed to NOT fill up the SPR even in the face of the middle east uncertainty.

The price of oil is not "historically low", it's over $40 brl. It was in the $20s only a year or so ago. There is not a vaid reason to fill the SPR, especially at such high prices.
Remember, he is not calling for releasing any of the SPR, just not adding to it at this time. That's a prudent policy.


Just when you hope that you might see some statesmanship out of Kerry he pulls a McCaullife and Clinton act out of the bag. This is just another example of a democrat doing anything to try and get elected. The sad thing is that Kerry was actually RIGHT when he disagreed with opening the SPR but he's too spineless to keep from keeping a coherent policy on it.

unfortunately for you he is right. both times.

dude1394
05-18-2004, 09:39 PM
You democrats will argue with a stump. So what is the use of have a "STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE" if while you are in conflict in the middle east you EMPTY it.

I agree that not ALL of the prices pressure is due to uncertainty but demand as well. But responsible leaders don't have the options to just sit around and bitch about something, they have to take steps to plan for the worst case. So if just one of those saudi pipelines is disrupted then we would probably have another hearing about why wasn't bush fillling it up faster.

You won't even concede Kerry's original point that it A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,

Mavdog
05-18-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
You democrats will argue with a stump. So what is the use of have a "STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE" if while you are in conflict in the middle east you EMPTY it.

in the 60 years that we have had the SPR we have used it...once. It is not a question of if we need to have some oil in reserve, it's a question of if we need to be adding to it today. We don't, as we would be a) paying some of the highest prices for crude to do so, and b) the buying by the government is only adding to upward price pressure. It is best for the US Gov to get out of the market today.


I agree that not ALL of the prices pressure is due to uncertainty but demand as well. But responsible leaders don't have the options to just sit around and bitch about something, they have to take steps to plan for the worst case. So if just one of those saudi pipelines is disrupted then we would probably have another hearing about why wasn't bush fillling it up faster.

It would take 2 weeks for any oil to get to the market. We have some 700 BBL of oil in the SPR and we don't need to add to that amount at $40 oil.


You won't even concede Kerry's original point that it A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,

It's not quite "months" but the SPR really can't be successfully used to influence the price of oil/gas. That was his point BTW

dude1394
05-18-2004, 10:35 PM
Why the VP for kerry won't be Gephardt.


The Washington Post reports that labor leaders are urging John Kerry to pick Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate. He sounds like an excellent choice. Not only does he have the support of industrial unions; he's from a bellwether state, is a respected national figure, and is reasonable on national defense.

Reader George Mitchell ("no relation"), however, points out a problem: Gephardt served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, 1965-71 to be exact. There's no reason to doubt that he served honorably, but then so did President Bush, and Kerry and others in his party have been implying that Air National Guard service is tantamount to dodging the draft (or even desertion, in the case of a Wesley Clark supporter). Given this, they can't very well put an Air National Guard veteran on the ticket, can they?

madape
05-19-2004, 08:19 AM
Our dependence on foreign oil is our biggest economic weakness and our biggest military vulnerability. The oil reserve is a key weapon against both. The fact that Kerry is willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution into a price-fixing, vote-getting, scheme is beyond reprehensible.

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Our dependence on foreign oil is our biggest economic weakness and our biggest military vulnerability. The oil reserve is a key weapon against both. The fact that Kerry is willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution into a price-fixing, vote-getting, scheme is beyond reprehensible.

Yeah, those approx. 60 DAYS worth of oil is "our most important domestic security precaution"...then God help us.

Just how is Kerry proposing to "sacrifice" this vital (in your mind) resource? In that he is not proposing to use it, I wonder just how it can be concluded he is being so treacherous?

madape
05-19-2004, 09:30 AM
Yes, God help us if a pan-arab war broke out complete an oil embargo. If that happens, we have very little time to secure a stable alternative oil supply before the country turns dark and our military machine grinds to a halt.

That small window of time would grow even smaller if Kerry had his way and flushed the oil reserves down the toilet to win a few votes.

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Yes, God help us if a pan-arab war broke out complete an oil embargo. If that happens, we have very little time to secure a stable alternative oil supply before the country turns dark and our military machine grinds to a halt.

With the production outside the mideast being 2/3 of the world's output, an oil embargo couldn't "turn...our country dark". In fact, only 3 of the top 10 oil producing countries are in the mid east.


That small window of time would grow even smaller if Kerry had his way and flushed the oil reserves down the toilet to win a few votes.

Still waiting for how Kerry is "willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution" and "flush[ing] the oil reserves down the toilet". Apparently you missed the news that kerry does not advocate releasing any of the SPR. There are even conservative repubs who agree that purchasing oil today to continue adding to the SPR is a mistake.

LRB
05-19-2004, 09:54 AM
Kerry is the kind of politician who would suggest using the lifeboats on the titantic to start fires to roast marshmellows if it would possible help him get elected.

madape
05-19-2004, 10:12 AM
Sorry, but Kerry is advocating using the oil reserves to influence gasoline prices. He has criticized Bush for building up the reserves in an attempt to make us more a more secure country. His reasoning? That in so doing, Bush is making gasoline more expensive. Besides being based on flawed logic (the buildup in oil reserves has had about .000001% on the rising gas prices), his reasoning is also borderline treasonous. Kerry is essentially promising to make us weaker nation in order to win a few votes from the uninformed populous. That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the man.

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Sorry, but Kerry is advocating using the oil reserves to influence gasoline prices. He has criticized Bush for building up the reserves in an attempt to make us more a more secure country. His reasoning? That in so doing, Bush is making gasoline more expensive. Besides being based on flawed logic (the buildup in oil reserves has had about .000001% on the rising gas prices), his reasoning is also borderline treasonous. Kerry is essentially promising to make us weaker nation in order to win a few votes from the uninformed populous. That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the man.

The correct statement is that Kerry (and others) are advocating NOT having the SPR possibly affect oil prices, hence gas prices.

LMAO! Calls for a moratorium on adding to the SPR is "based on flawed logic" and are "also borderline treasonous"??

"The Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the presumptive Democratic presidential mominee John Kerry said the Bush administration should suspend purchases of oil for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve while crude prices remain high.
"Common sense dictates that the best time to purchase oil is when oil prices are low" House Energy chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) said." pg B2 WSJ 4/19/04

Let's start the treason campaign with Joe, OK?

I can't stop laughing...

dude1394
05-19-2004, 11:04 AM
Even the NYTimes for goodness sakes recognizes that Kerry is full of it. They agree with your facts but even they aren't partisan enough to actually commend Kerry for it.

Kerry a nut (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/19WED1.html?ex=1085544000&en=c93135afa0e4fbf3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

Gasoline Hysteria

With the election season moving into full swing as Americans start thinking about their summer travel plans, it's sadly predictable that politicians will try to curry favor with voters by playing silly blame games and proposing simplistic quick fixes for rising gasoline prices, which are averaging more than $2 a gallon. A case in point is the demand made yesterday by 20 Senate Democrats that the government release as much as 60 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next two months.

President Bush is rightly resisting the call. Since 9/11, the administration has been adding to the reserve in a disciplined manner, and it is closing in on its goal of filling up the reserve's capacity, 700 million barrels. Tapping the reserve to assuage motorists at a time of increasing security threats to already tight fuel supplies would be foolish.

As the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, correctly noted yesterday, "The reserve is not there to simply try to change prices." In fact, the law calls for it to be tapped only in the event of supply disruptions. And even if Washington wanted to alleviate rising fuel costs, the reserve is not a very effective instrument for doing so, as President Bill Clinton learned in the fall of 2000. Experts estimate that at most, turning on the spigot now would knock only a few cents off a gallon.

Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, knows this, of course, and he demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy when he suggests that President Bush could single-handedly bring down fuel costs. Senator Kerry has urged the administration to stop buying oil for the reserve, as if that would make a difference. Fortunately, some residue of shame has kept him from joining the other Democrats calling for the reserve to be raided. The government's oil purchases have taken place at a time of higher prices, but they are not a major cause of the increase.

The real culprit behind rising energy costs is the roaring demand from growing economies, especially China's and the United States', though the volatile situation in the Middle East does seem to add a risk premium. Most of China's energy demand is for industrialization, which, in turn, contributes to the global economic recovery. In contrast, roughly half of the United States' petroleum demand is for personal consumption, primarily for cars, trucks and S.U.V.'s, a situation that, in turn, makes the nation ever more dependent on an increasingly endangered supply of foreign oil.

If $2-per-gallon sticker shock slowed sales of Hummers — which get about 11 miles per gallon — that would hardly qualify as a national tragedy.

Still, even Americans who don't drive gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s are feeling pain at the pump, and responsible political leaders have to prepare the public for this new reality. No comprehensive energy policy should overlook long-term means of encouraging conservation and minimizing our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf region. Rather than pretending that there are facile switch-flipping fixes, Senator Kerry should be talking about bolstering conservation efforts and fuel economy standards, and encouraging new investment in refining capacity.

In the meantime, we all need to keep the shrill hyperbole about "record high" oil prices in perspective. A barrel of oil now costs more than $40, but when adjusted for inflation, that price is less alarming. During past spikes, oil has cost well over twice that amount in today's dollars. Yes, high fuel costs could ultimately endanger the economic recovery, but there is no reason to believe that they will do so at this level.

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Even the NYTimes for goodness sakes recognizes that Kerry is full of it. They agree with your facts but even they aren't partisan enough to actually commend Kerry for it.

I am laying out the facts (and yes thanks for the validation) that Kerry is NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue. There are some demos who have called for the release of oil from it, and they are fooling themselves (and those who listen) that such a release would have any meaningful affect on gas prices. Kerry hasn't made any comments supporting that view tho, so the criticism of Kerry on this issue is unfounded.

Now, the issue of gas prices is getting some legs, and I expect this to become fodder for stump speeches. People are going to eat it up too...

We should wait to add more oil to the SPR tho, as a good business decision, until crude prices fall.

dude1394
05-19-2004, 12:30 PM
I am laying out the facts (and yes thanks for the validation) that Kerry is NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue.

I'm confused as to how you interpret this:


Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, knows this, of course, and he demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy when he suggests that President Bush could single-handedly bring down fuel costs. Senator Kerry has urged the administration to stop buying oil for the reserve, as if that would make a difference. Fortunately, some residue of shame has kept him from joining the other Democrats calling for the reserve to be raided. The government's oil purchases have taken place at a time of higher prices, but they are not a major cause of the increase.

As NOT claiming that kerry is using this as a cheap campaign issue. Coming from the NYTimes this is as damning as they ever get in criticising their own party.

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 02:19 PM
I believe the reference is to the concept that the Prez can lower gas prices, which is an issue that I see Kerry drumming hard on. Is it valid? no, but that doesn't mean the issue won't resonate with the voters.

dude1394
05-19-2004, 04:35 PM
So how is that NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue??

Mavdog
05-19-2004, 05:03 PM
Kerry advocates not using the SPR...so how is that using it as a "cheap campaign issue"? It's not.

The high gasoline prices are what I anticipate Kerry campaign using as a campaign issue. As the NYT article pointed out, the pres really can't do crap about the price of gasoline. However, accuracy in an election campaign may be asking for alot....i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Here's a news release from the Kerry campaigmn that begins what I am predicting:
"From Maine to California, gas prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, costing families hundreds more dollars and emptying pocketbooks already pinched by lower wages and incomes. Meanwhile, George Bush’s friends in the oil industry have been raking in billions in profits - $33.6 billion over the past three years.

"We're seeing the economic opportunity of America's families disappearing into gas tanks across the country," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said. "Already strapped by rising costs in health care and higher education, families are losing the opportunity to save and get ahead every time they drive to work, pick up their kids or go out for dinner. And for some reason, the President is not lifting a finger to help. That is wrong, and in November, we'll change course together and build a stronger America where families get the help they need."

For state-by-state information, use the map above. For more information on the impact of skyrocketing gas prices on America’s families, industry, and the economy, see the full national report here. . This report also includes details on John Kerry's plan to lower gas prices, improve efficiency, and move our country toward energy independence."

So here's Texas (it's an acrobat file so I can't paste)
Texas gas prices (http://www.johnkerry.com/features/gasprices/texas.pdf)

Pretty slick, and I'd expect it to have receptive ears.

madape
05-20-2004, 08:41 AM
http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20040519gas.gif

Here's a graph of inflation adjusted gas prices over the last thirty years. We've had it much, much worse.

dude1394
05-31-2004, 05:47 PM
Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.


For months, fears of a terrorist attack on major petroleum facilities have helped drive crude oil and gasoline prices steadily upward. Now, just as prices were starting to retreat from record levels, a deadly assault in one of the industry's most vital hubs has raised those worries to new heights.

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.


For months, fears of a terrorist attack on major petroleum facilities have helped drive crude oil and gasoline prices steadily upward. Now, just as prices were starting to retreat from record levels, a deadly assault in one of the industry's most vital hubs has raised those worries to new heights.

Odd for you to say as Kerry has never proposed to "tap" the SPR. Perhaps you should check your facts better.

u2sarajevo
06-02-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: dude1394
Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.


For months, fears of a terrorist attack on major petroleum facilities have helped drive crude oil and gasoline prices steadily upward. Now, just as prices were starting to retreat from record levels, a deadly assault in one of the industry's most vital hubs has raised those worries to new heights.

Odd for you to say as Kerry has never proposed to "tap" the SPR. Perhaps you should check your facts better.I think you are the one that needs to check your facts better....

Kerry Pushes Oil Reserve Back to Political Front Burner in Dispute Over Gas Prices. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108167/posts)

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: dude1394
Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.


For months, fears of a terrorist attack on major petroleum facilities have helped drive crude oil and gasoline prices steadily upward. Now, just as prices were starting to retreat from record levels, a deadly assault in one of the industry's most vital hubs has raised those worries to new heights.

Odd for you to say as Kerry has never proposed to "tap" the SPR. Perhaps you should check your facts better.I think you are the one that needs to check your facts better....

Kerry Pushes Oil Reserve Back to Political Front Burner in Dispute Over Gas Prices. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108167/posts)

Did you read the article?

"While Kerry did not suggest the government release some of the 650 million barrels held on salt domes on the Gulf coast, he said it made no sense to keep diverting oil into the reserve when economists cite tight commercial inventories as one reason for the high energy prices.

That validates my assertion that Kerry does not propose to "tap" the SPR.. Thanks for the confirmation.

u2sarajevo
06-02-2004, 01:14 PM
How is not "diverting oil into the reserve" not tapping into the oil reserve?

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
How is not "diverting oil into the reserve" not tapping into the oil reserve?

Easy, the word "tap" says to take out of the SPR, "not diverting oil into the reserve" says nothing about selling (to "tap") any of the SPR but rather says it makes no economic or strategic sense to add oil at this time.

madape
06-02-2004, 01:45 PM
It makes sense to add to the reserves if you want to defend yourself against a sudden cut in the petrolium supply pipeline. As evidenced by last weekend's targeting of the Saudi oil industry by Al Qaeda, this seems to be a legitimate threat. Only a fool (or a man who will say anything to get elected) would suggest that preparing for such an occurance is not in the best interests of this country.

To Kerry, winning the votes of a few ill-informed cash-strapped voters is of higher priority than protecting his country from a catastrophic oil shortage. Should we be suprised?

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 01:54 PM
The total supply of the SPR is about 30 days of US consumption. If the oil supply was dramatically affected such as you suggest the SPR will not innoculate the US from the disruption.

Second, the mid east is now not the primary producer of oil in the world. Yes, a disruption in Saudi production would push the price up, but it would not stop the flow of oil into the US.

It makes no economic sense to be adding to the SPR at this time, and it also makes no strategic sense either. The US gov, should stop adding to the SPR today, it's contributing to the high demand as well as buying oil at the price zenith.

madape
06-02-2004, 02:33 PM
30 days with oil is better than 29, which is better than zero. Anything we do to protect ourselves against an attack is worthwhile, especially when you consider the costs of protection. Increasing the reserves has almost no impact on the price of gasoline. Kerry would like it to, it would give him a reason to blame Bush for high gas prices. But unfortunately for him it doesn't. So while it may not make sense to you to protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack, it makes even LESS sense NOT to protect yourself.

And I'm so glad that you are such an expert on the fluctuation in oil prices that you decry the US for buying oil at it's "zenith". If I knew as much, I'd earn a million dollars a day dealing petrolium futures. However, I'm happy that the US government doesn't include the same kind of speculative, risky investment strategy as fiscal policy. Count me as person who doesn't want the US Government playing the commodity market with my tax dollars.

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by: madape
30 days with oil is better than 29, which is better than zero. Anything we do to protect ourselves against an attack is worthwhile, especially when you consider the costs of protection. Increasing the reserves has almost no impact on the price of gasoline. Kerry would like it to, it would give him a reason to blame Bush for high gas prices. But unfortunately for him it doesn't. So while it may not make sense to you to protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack, it makes even LESS sense NOT to protect yourself.

Please explain how adding oil to the SPR will "protect ourselves against an attack" or would "protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It doesn't.


And I'm so glad that you are such an expert on the fluctuation in oil prices that you decry the US for buying oil at it's "zenith". If I knew as much, I'd earn a million dollars a day dealing petrolium futures.

The discussion is about oil prices today, which you must have missed.


However, I'm happy that the US government doesn't include the same kind of speculative, risky investment strategy as fiscal policy. Count me as person who doesn't want the US Government playing the commodity market with my tax dollars.

but they are by paying he historically highest prices (at its zenith, remember?) for the oil that is being purchased with no real need to fill a reservoir that may never be used.

madape
06-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Sometimes, your lack of common sense really suprises me. You stated that you don't want the US to buy oil today, because the prices are higher than they were a few months ago. Well when do you want to buy the oil? The time machine hasn't been invented yet. We can't fly back to 2003, load up the oil and bring it back home. The only fucking choices we have are

1) buy oil now
2) buy oil in the future
3) never buy oil again

Clearly you don't want to buy oil now (option #1), because you think prices are at a "zenith". I don't know if you know this, but a "zenith" means that prices are the highest they will EVER be. This is what you meant.. right? The implied statement is that oil prices will soon go down, meaning that the US could save money by filling up the reserves with cheaper oil at sometime in the future (option #2). So we WERE talking about current prices of oil UNTIL you started talking about deferring purchasing oil due to temporarily high petroleum prices.

I say fuck that. It is very likely that oil prices go nowhere but up over the next few years. Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

The point is that the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations. If they need petrolium, they should buy it at market prices.

As for your first retarded critism of my semantics regarding "protection", I have this to say: The SPR protects our economy, our military capabilities, and our ability to defend ourselves, from an attack on the global oil supply. I don't think that point needs any further clarification.

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by: madape
Sometimes, your lack of common sense really suprises me. You stated that you don't want the US to buy oil today, because the prices are higher than they were a few months ago. Well when do you want to buy the oil? The time machine hasn't been invented yet. We can't fly back to 2003, load up the oil and bring it back home. The only fucking choices we have are

1) buy oil now
2) buy oil in the future
3) never buy oil again

Clearly you don't want to buy oil now (option #1), because you think prices are at a "zenith". I don't know if you know this, but a "zenith" means that prices are the highest they will EVER be. This is what you meant.. right?

No, zenith has no connotation of what we don't know i.e. what the future might be, but rather what we do know of the present and past.


The implied statement is that oil prices will soon go down, meaning that the US could save money by filling up the reserves with cheaper oil at sometime in the future (option #2). So we WERE talking about current prices of oil UNTIL you started talking about deferring purchasing oil due to temporarily high petroleum prices.

History of commodity pricing says that there is fluctuation, so it is a reasonable assumption that the high prices we are seeing will adjust. Will they go down? yes, that is a reasonable prediction based on historical data. If you believe "that oil prices will soon go down" you're entitled. I do not make those predictions as to if the price will "soon" go down.


I say fuck that. It is very likely that oil prices go nowhere but up over the next few years. Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

Actually the price is based on West Texas Intermediate crude, Saudi crude is not the same.


The point is that the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations. If they need petrolium, they should buy it at market prices.

But your above rationale for buying is based on just that premise you dismiss in saying "the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations". You contradict yourself.


As for your first retarded critism of my semantics regarding "protection", I have this to say: The SPR protects our economy, our military capabilities, and our ability to defend ourselves, from an attack on the global oil supply. I don't think that point needs any further clarification.

You said the SPR is there to "protect ourselves against an attack", and "against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It does neither, and if you see a 30 day supply of oil as saving "our military capabilities", it would be even less than a 30 day supply.
wow. what protection.
you're fooling yourself.
In deference to those mentally impaired people I wouldn't dream of calling your assertions "retarded". Inane yes, unrealistic surely, self deceiving certainly, but retarded? nah...why put those mentally impaired in the same place as you?

dude1394
06-02-2004, 09:29 PM
Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

Actually the price is based on West Texas Intermediate crude, Saudi crude is not the same.

Why do you do this md?? It's either just being pedantic and is irritating. Just make your argument.


So after reading all of this, are you making the argument that since 30 days is worthless we should just get rid of the spr? I don't see what other conclusion you can come to.

LRB
06-03-2004, 10:50 AM
[i]Originally posted by: Mavdog


You said the SPR is there to "protect ourselves against an attack", and "against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It does neither, and if you see a 30 day supply of oil as saving "our military capabilities", it would be even less than a 30 day supply.
wow. what protection.
you're fooling yourself.
In deference to those mentally impaired people I wouldn't dream of calling your assertions "retarded". Inane yes, unrealistic surely, self deceiving certainly, but retarded? nah...why put those mentally impaired in the same place as you?


Mavdog a 30 day supply of oil is a crucial part and intergral part of our self defense. It does not however stand alone. If you take the simpleton method of looking at this, which you do seem determined to do, then it may at 1st glance appear to be a stop gap measure of little use. However if you look at the fully integrated plan it becomes apparent that it does have high value.

30 days give us great leeway to inact measures to repair damage, increase domestic and alternate supplys of oil, even to enact legislation and rationing if necessary. A country the size and military capability of Saddam's Iraq could be brought under the general military control of the US. A great deal of military force can be mobilized to protect those trying to effect repairs on a oil pipeline or other key piece of infrastruce. If nothing else it gives us time to consider and implement contingency plans.

However 30 days is rather sparse, and each additional day could yield much more safety from terrorists attacks. Ideally it would be much better to at least try and double or even triple this. That would be unrealistic to do overnight or probably within a single year. However it is imparitive that we start a gradual move towards this.

And while it is almost assuredly true that oil prices will dip below what they are today, it is probably equally as true that they will go higher. Just because there is fluxuation in the market is no reason to postpone buying a commidity that you have a pressing need for to help insure the safety of your nation. We have probably never needed this reserve as much as we today, but it is highly likely that our need will only increase before it decreases because of the war on terrorism that we are so ardently engaged. However John Kerry and many of his liberal left followers would gladly sacrifice the saftety of their country for the opportunity to gain political control. To me that borderlines on traiterous activity and shows a great lack of character in Kerry. AS to his followers, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to gross ignornance in the majority of the cases.

madape
06-03-2004, 11:26 AM
And while it is almost assuredly true that oil prices will dip below what they are today, it is probably equally as true that they will go higher. Just because there is fluxuation in the market is no reason to postpone buying a commidity that you have a pressing need for to help insure the safety of your nation.

The price of oil is not "almost assuredly" going to decrease in the short term. The fact is that we don't really know where it's going. Oil and oil futures are sold at market generated prices, which means that all the information and uncertainty available to the public is already built into the current price. Delaying the purchase of oil based on an anticipated drop in prices is similiar to trying to "time" the stock market... a strategy that has lead to financial ruin for countless individual investors. My point here is that the government should not be using speculative investment strategy with our tax dollars... certianly not for something as vital to our national security as the strategic petroleum reserves.

LRB
06-03-2004, 11:31 AM
Madape I concure that it is highly unlikely that we will see any significant dip in oil prices in the near future. And I just as heartedly agree that it is an unwise course for the government to try and arificially manipulate the oil market in such a way most especially when our national security is on the line. Never have we needed the oil reserves more than when we are at war, and we are currently at war.

Mavdog
06-03-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Mavdog a 30 day supply of oil is a crucial part and intergral part of our self defense. It does not however stand alone. If you take the simpleton method of looking at this, which you do seem determined to do, then it may at 1st glance appear to be a stop gap measure of little use. However if you look at the fully integrated plan it becomes apparent that it does have high value.

The SPR does nothing to defend our country from attack and therefore is not a factor of our "self defense". It is a resource that has questionable value save and except to those who sold the oil to the government in the first place.


30 days give us great leeway to inact measures to repair damage, increase domestic and alternate supplys of oil, even to enact legislation and rationing if necessary. A country the size and military capability of Saddam's Iraq could be brought under the general military control of the US. A great deal of military force can be mobilized to protect those trying to effect repairs on a oil pipeline or other key piece of infrastruce. If nothing else it gives us time to consider and implement contingency plans.

30 days to "increase domestic and alternate supplys of oil"???? Impossible. It is a non-factor in that the supply cannot make an impact. Likewise if we are short of oil and a military force was mobilized it would mean the supply timeline would be even less than those 30 days.


However 30 days is rather sparse, and each additional day could yield much more safety from terrorists attacks. Ideally it would be much better to at least try and double or even triple this. That would be unrealistic to do overnight or probably within a single year. However it is imparitive that we start a gradual move towards this.

So the SPR provides "safety from terrorists attacks"??? No, it doesn't. You deceive yourself if you truly believe this is the case. Terrorists couldn't care less if the US had a SPR or not, and having a SPR doesn't deter their intent to attack the US.


And while it is almost assuredly true that oil prices will dip below what they are today, it is probably equally as true that they will go higher.

Historical pricing says the cost of crude will decrease from the current level. Adding oil to the SPR is not needed, especially at the current price of crude.


Just because there is fluxuation in the market is no reason to postpone buying a commidity that you have a pressing need for to help insure the safety of your nation. We have probably never needed this reserve as much as we today, but it is highly likely that our need will only increase before it decreases because of the war on terrorism that we are so ardently engaged.

If there is a "pressing need" of the SPR to "insure the safety of your nation" why has it not been utilized, and why then is there almost unaniminity that it not be used? Because it is NOT needed. As we are seeing, the markets react to fill the need when there is one. As the price increases supply rises to meet that need. Th SPR is a relic of the past concentration of oil production in one region of the world, and with that region now being only about a quarter of the world's production the time of the SPR is way past.

There is not a valid reason to continue to add oil to the SPR at this time.


However John Kerry and many of his liberal left followers would gladly sacrifice the saftety of their country for the opportunity to gain political control. To me that borderlines on traiterous activity and shows a great lack of character in Kerry. AS to his followers, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to gross ignornance in the majority of the cases.

Great example of rhetoric that has no basis in fact and shows the "gross ignorance" of your position.

LRB
06-04-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog



If there is a "pressing need" of the SPR to "insure the safety of your nation" why has it not been utilized

One of the most inane arguments yet. It's like saying that I don't need a life insurance policy because I haven't had to use it. Or even more applicable it's like a major business saying that it doesn't need a disaster recovery plan because it's never had to use the one it has. The SPR is like insurance that hope to never have to use, but want to have because you can't afford not to have it if the need does arise.

And yes it does add to our national defense just as having a reserve supply of MRE's, spare parts, medical supplies, and other items that our armed forces need to keep operating.