.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail





Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Why Kerry Will Lose

John Kerry at a "front porch" meeting in Canonsburg, Pa the other day:

"Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's (a restaurant), and he'll take care of you.' I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want?

"He just gives you what he's got, right? And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."

John Kerry has a problem. Kerry has yet to define himself to...himself. Kerry does not yet know who he is or, rather, who he wants to be when he grows up. He is confused & can not make up his mind. His flip-flops cover a wide array of subjects & are well documented & available to anyone who takes the time to check them out. He is seen as coming down on both sides of an issue, sometimes within days. Thus the jokes about Flipper, etc. There is truth in jest.

Kerry may have some core beliefs - may have, that is. However, if he does, then he subjugates them to the political expediency of playing to the particular audience at hand & saying what he thinks will stroke that audience. An example is when he spoke in Michigan to auto workers & bragged about the SUV he owns. Soon after in front of an environmental group he fudged ownership of an SUV by saying he doesn't own one - his family does.

This may play well to a single-issue focused group, i.e., owns an SUV for the auto crowd, but doesn't own one for the environmental crowd. But it is dishonest. Beyond being dishonest & smacking of pandering, the parts do not add up to the whole. When seen in the whole it shows a man who doesn't know where he is at or who he is. Definitive positions have never been Kerry's mainstay.

If Kerry can not define himself or his positions without the doubletakes, without the nuances, without the shifting beliefs, then how can he expect the average voter to define his positions in a lucid manner? How can he expect an electorate to vote for him when they are unclear why they are voting for him or for what he believes? It is not enough to hope that the electorate votes only for Kerry because they dislike Bush. Betting on this alone, then all hope will fall short of the 271 electoral votes needed.

Yet, John Kerry has not learned this lesson. After flipping back & forth on his position about the Iraq war, he shocked some supporters last month when he said that even knowing Saddam did not have WMD's & knowing what he knows now, he would still support the war. But yet again, the other day he said that this is "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." It's the core beliefs, stupid, or lack of them.

Like that restaurant he spoke of, Kerry's beliefs are "whatever he's cooked up that day" which confuses not only Kerry, but the voter as well.

And this is why John Kerry will lose the election.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you just fault Kerry for doing a Bushism in his Canonsburg, Pa. speach?

12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Kerry is betting that that he will get his votes just because voters dislike Bush then Bush must be doing a awfully poor job in the opinion of half the country.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Bush is rising in polls - Kerry sinking like the rock he is & his 'charm' is not gonna win votes. This is gonna be a blow-out.

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My dissapointment in President Bush's performance keeps growing every day. Issue after issue. Debate after debate. News article after news article. As the Democratic party has shifted it's primary focus to the Middle Class, Republicans have become only more focused on helping the Rich. They only incur issues of God and Religion as a political tool - not actually acting in those ways prescribed in the Bible.

2:05 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Gee - I thought Bush had reached bottom with you - Glad to see he still has room to disappoint you. How are the Dems for the Middle Class? How are the Repubs for the rich (isn't Kerry & Edwards rich?)? How are the Repubs not living up to the Bible (Do the Dems even know there is a Bible?)? Generalities. And so say you, which in itself does not mean it is so.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans -

tax cuts for the rich

not bargaining with drug companies to get the same reduction in price that other countries get

rescinding anti-strip mining laws

rescinding national park preservation laws

weakening banking laws

allowing out-sourcing to escalate

proposing legislation to give the rich money to send their kids to private schools

not tightening credit card laws - the rates for the lower middle class are usury

spending so much that our national debt is at record levels - what happened to the fiscally responsible republicans?

spending money on war instead of it's own populice

protecting rich kids from having to serve in the war

giving out government contracts to insider companies like Haliburton - and paying them in full even when accusing them of overcharging

etc. etc.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans -

tax cuts for the rich

not bargaining with drug companies to get the same reduction in price that other countries get

rescinding anti-strip mining laws

rescinding national park preservation laws

weakening banking laws

allowing out-sourcing to escalate

proposing legislation to give the rich money to send their kids to private schools

not tightening credit card laws - the rates for the lower middle class are usury

spending so much that our national debt is at record levels - what happened to the fiscally responsible republicans?

spending money on war instead of it's own populice

protecting rich kids from having to serve in the war

giving out government contracts to insider companies like Haliburton - and paying them in full even when accusing them of overcharging

etc. etc.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supplies of crude oil in the US are currently low and about to go lower because of Huricane Ivan has disrupted offshore production.

Will Bush release supplies of crude from the US reserves?

Will Bush put a price freeze on oil and gas?

Will he have price gouging investigated? Actually prosecute and substantially fine those companies involved?

Or will he let the American populace be f'd by the oil companies with obscene profits for the rich?

Please tell me which President we have.

4:13 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Now why do you ask a silly questions like this - you already know the answer - Bush & Cheney are out to steal all the poor peoples' money from huge profits in gas & spread the bonanza to their rich friends. Geesh - and you call your self a libnut when ya havta ask these questions?

2:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember a GREAT American President who was Republican. He was not afraid to open the US oil reserves when prices got out of hand. He was not afraid to freeze prices when inflation got out of hand. RMN. Richard Millhouse Nixon. And you call me a libnut???

3:42 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Again - access to the National Reserve provides no measurable price relief of gas(try Rolaids). Maybe price will drop 1 cent/gallon. Maybe. Glad ta see ya liked Dickie Boy.

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the more moderate critiques of Bush's speach to the UN. Bush is not really an effective leader. That is one (of many many) reasons that it is a poor idea to vote for Bush.

President Bush's Lead Balloon
Published: September 22, 2004

We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.

Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders.

Mr. Bush has never exhibited much respect for the United Nations at the best of times. But the United States now desperately needs the partnership of other nations on Iraq. Without substantial help from major nations, the prospects for stabilizing that country anytime soon are bleak. American soldiers and taxpayers are paying a heavy price for Washington's wrongheaded early insistence on controlling all important military, political and economic decision-making in post-invasion Iraq.

Other nations have generally responded by sitting sullenly on the sidelines. Even when they cast grudging votes for American-sponsored Security Council resolutions, they hold back on troops and financial support. With the war going so badly and voters hostile to it in most democracies, that situation is unlikely to change unless Washington signals a new attitude, and deals with other countries as real partners whose opinions and economic interests are entitled to respectful consideration.

Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taxes and Debt. Another reason to vote against Bush.

• Bid to Save Tax Refunds For the Poor Is Blocked (Post, Sept. 23, 2004)

• $2.3 Trillion in New Debt Expected by 2014 (Post, Sept. 8, 2004)

• Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle (Post, Aug. 13, 2004)

• Manufacturing Tax Cut Would Help Few (Post, Aug. 10, 2004)

• White House Predicts 2004 Deficit Of $445 Billion -- the Biggest Ever (Post, July 31, 2004)


Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members on both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another reason to vote against Bush. The cost and quality of healthcare. Bush wants to cut the cost of doctor's insurance by limiting the amount lawyers can sue for. There is a more sane way and that is by culling out poor quality doctors that create the most insurance claims. Bush and Republican party go not agree with this. They let killer doctors to continue to practice. In return, the Rebublican party gets the bulk of contributions from doctors and the AMA.


Poor Medical Treatment Kills Thousands in U.S.,

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON Sept. 23, 2004 — Requiring doctors and hospitals to report publicly on their performance and tying their pay to the results would dramatically reduce avoidable deaths and costs attributable to poor medical care, says a new report from an organization that works to improve health care quality.
Wild variations in medical care led to 79,000 avoidable deaths and $1.8 billion in additional medical costs last year, the private National Committee for Quality Assurance said in its annual report released Wednesday.

The report described a substantial gap in quality between the best providers and the national average for treating a range of common conditions that would not be tolerated in almost any other sector of the U.S. economy. For example, failure to control high blood pressure resulted in up to 26,000 deaths last year that could have been avoided with competent medical care, the report said.

The differences in health care quality persist even as health insurance premiums have risen by more than 10 percent annually for the past four years. "This report underscores that all too often we are not getting good value for that money," said Peter V. Lee, president and chief executive of the Pacific Business Group on Health, a coalition of businesses that provide health insurance to 3 million people.

On the other hand, the report found that health insurance plans that publicly report their performance showed marked improvement in most areas, including cholesterol management, diabetes care, breast cancer screening and flu shots for adults.

Better control of blood pressure will lead to 2,500 fewer fatal heart attacks in 2004, the report said. Health plans also did a better job of reducing cholesterol levels among patients with diabetes, it said.

But those plans cover only about a quarter of the U.S. population, about 69 million people.

"The data we have tell a great story, health care quality is improving consistently and dramatically," said Margaret E. O'Kane, NCQA's president. "Why don't we have performance data for the other 75 percent of the U.S. health care system?"

Last year's Medicare prescription drug law took a step in this direction by linking a small portion of Medicare payments to hospitals' willingness to submit quality data and conducting trial runs that tie pay to performance for some health care providers.

One notable exception to the upward trend in quality was treatment of mental illness, which showed no improvement over 2002.

"Patients get the correct care only about 50 percent of the time," the report said.

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of Massachusetts was the top-rated health plan for both clinical care and member satisfaction, the report said.

12:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source