2004 Presidential Election

[JOEBIALEK]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

[JSE]

". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.

[JSE]

Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.

Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

and,

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

Yes, he did so againist the will of the UN. And not just the voting members, but non voting members as well. We should care, look at the amount of money leaving home, and going to Iraq. We didn't have to shoulder this much financial responsibility in the first gulf war. It is now squarely on our backs, and part reason the deficit is so high. Had you have been paying close attention, you would have found that we had absolutely NO support in the UN for this kinda of move. Those thirty nations that are part of the coalition, how many total troops did they contribute. Let's see, Poland contributed soldiers to fight, England did also, Spain, but now they are pulled out, and Australia. These are the only countries that contributed fighting soldiers. The rest of the 26 sent support staff only. In the first gulf war, there were approximately 20 countries that contributed FIGHTING units, not support staff. IMO, what we have now is not a coalition. Especially since we have had to promise them something to get them to partcipate.

and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

Well considering we never found WMD, and we had people on the ground actively searching, and G.W didn't have the patience to wait until they were completed, an arguement can be made that we rushed to war. Had Hans Blix had the oportunity to complete his search, he could have concluded that no WMD can be found, eleminated the chance that troops would be deployed, and 1,000+ would still be alive, and 5,000+ would not be maimed or injured. We would also have 200 billion dollars more in our coffers, and countless Iraqi people still alive. The arguement that he(Hussein) would have given WMD to terrorist rings hollow when you think about the fact that Iraq didn't have any.
The arguement that he(Hussein) would have been a problem down the road also rings hollow since we have no way of knowing that at all(intelligence cannot predict the future)
It seems to me based on recent history, he(Hussein) was VERY preoccupied with Iran to pay us much attention(they were kicking his butt). As far as the compromise on terror, I think the world was with us on this, now I think based on the actions of Bush, we are pretty much in this alone. Especially in the way we are carrying this out.

Is the world better off with Hussein? Definately. But it would be better off without the leaders of North Korea, and Iran. Since we are in the business of deciding what is good for the world, let's just go in and take them out too, and any other that we deemed unsuitable for the world.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Nobody in their right mind believes that a President controls the economy. That is bigger than even the office of the President. Our economy is cyclical, and has nothing to do with the President. However this President does have a direct effect in how much we spend, and we have spent our way from a surplus, to a deficit, the largest deficit in the history of this country. He has yet to veto a single spending bill(great fiscal responsibility). During his watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider. More people lost their health insurance during his watch than any other President, and he didn't even talk about it until somebody else did This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for that. We are easily the most hated country, and he the most hated President in the world because of his foreign policy. I don't know about you, but I have travelled to over 18 countries in the last 20 months. I have been spit on, cussed out, not served at deli's, chased out of various places, and had quite a few doors slammed in my face because I am American. Before this Presidency this NEVER happened to me. In those 20 months I have not heard one good thing about this President from anyone in these foreign countries including England, Italy Australia, or Spain. His tax cuts that he so proudly speaks of, I am sure the rich love him for it, but $300 he gave to middle class Americans was quickly eaten up by high gas prices, and increased health insurance costs. Some tax break huh. Those tax cut's have done a bit to increase the national debt, and have not done very much to get unemployed Americans back to work. States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.

Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

Its either spin, or Bush supporters denial. Whichever, the results speak for themselves. Am I a Kerry supporter, not hardly. But IMO he is the lesser of two evils. To say that he(Bush) has kept us safe, and there have been no further attacks on this country is naive. These terrorist are smart enough not to try the same thing twice no matter who is President. It is easier to hit other countries that support us, and erode that support away(Spain, Philippines)

[JeffKnob]

I find it interesting that Bush supporters seem to believe everything that Bush says without checking other sources for the facts. Bush is now saying that Kerry will prematurely pull out our troops from Iraq. Kerry has NEVER said that. He wants to follow a process of gaining the peace in Iraq, getting them setup with their own government, and then getting our troops home. I have no idea where Bush is getting this from. I don't see how Bush supporters can think it was right for us to go into Iraq like we did. Why couldn't we just let the political methods work their coarse like Bush said he was going to do? Why are Republicans so keen on war?

I am also very upset about the horrible spending practices of this administration. Bush says that he gave tax cuts to put more money in peoples pockets. That is great but then Bush needed to lower the amount he spends not spend more. If a persons income goes down due to a change in jobs or a demotion, does it make sense to spend more money? People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will. I am not totally apposed to it happening, afterall the money has to come from somewhere to payback the BS that Bush did. What we need to do is make the rich people pay their fair share? They make too much damn money for the actual work they do anyway. When you make that much money there are more things you are invested in which makes it easier for you to find tax loopholes. Most rich people hardly pay taxes. That isn't fair. We also need to audit where our tax money is going. Remove all of the BS that has been added to our budget. There is so much stupid spending being added to our budget by the congress adding stuff onto existing important bills. The bill gets passed because the main purpose is important. Kerry will clean this up.

Bush acts like a strong leader but if you don't have the brainpower to make good decisions you are no longer a good leader. We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.

[JSE]

T,

You have some good points but I simply was responding to your statement that the talking points that JOEBIALEK posted are all true when is fact they are not. They are spin and nothing else. I'm not getting in a tit for tat with you over this because neither one of us can win. Why, because is comes down to our opinions.

I also called JOEBIALEK on the statement he made.

" After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

I guess he has manage to correctly predict the election's outcome and established the "truth" for all americans in regard to G.W. based on his research and analysis. What research and analysis? Let's see it. What a crock of dung. I am sure polsters, networks, and the candidates would like to see how he came to this conclusion. It might save us the hassle of an election. I guess in the end, it's just his opinon.

Have a good one!

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

T,

You have some good points but I simply was responding to your statement that the talking points that JOEBIALEK posted are all true when is fact they are not. They are spin and nothing else. I'm not getting in a tit for tat with you over this because neither one of us can win. Why, because is comes down to our opinions.

I also called JOEBIALEK on the statement he made.

" After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

I guess he has manage to correctly predict the election's outcome and established the "truth" for all americans in regard to G.W. based on his research and analysis. What research and analysis? Let's see it. What a crock of dung. I am sure polsters, networks, and the candidates would like to see how he came to this conclusion. It might save us the hassle of an election. I guess in the end, it's just his opinon.

Have a good one!

JSE

Actually I stated that I don't agree with some of his conclusions, and the landslide comment....WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....right!!! This country is split right down the middle on everything under the sun. If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no! Anyway, I am jaded, if these elections end up like 2000, the T-man is going to buy his own island, make myself president, and hold elections and vote for myself every year!!!

[Woochifer]

Actually I stated that I don't agree with some of his conclusions, and the landslide comment....WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....right!!! This country is split right down the middle on everything under the sun. If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no! Anyway, I am jaded, if these elections end up like 2000, the T-man is going to buy his own island, make myself president, and hold elections and vote for myself every year!!!

Hey T -

I always thought you were a monarchist. Now, you're into elections and this democracy stuff, what up with that? Of course, guys like me would have to conduct sit-ins and chain ourselves to buildings for the right to vote in the Terrence Empire.

[JSE]

If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no!

Sounds to me like I would have to pee on the naysayers.

Have a good one.

JSE

[woodman]

I find it extremely sad that 1/2 (approximately) of our population is walking about in such a state of deep hypnosis that they are totally oblivious to just what a corrupt, unscrupulous, and morally bankrupt administration is currently in power here in the USA ... it's absolutely mind-boggling!

I cannot quite agree with JoeBialek's assessment that we're gonna elect John Kerry in a landslide come Nov. 2nd, but I'm hoping with every fibre of my being that we DO elect him and that the outcome is not in doubt or challenged as it was in 2000. IMO, if our country is to survive we must retire the present administration and replace them with some people that have some semblance of concern for the "common people" instead of for the big corporations and those that derive their wealth from them.

[Resident Loser]

...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.

What we need are term limits and the original concept of citizen-leaders, who will return to farming or packing pickles or whatever after their public service...it's the class(and I use that term loosely) of "professional politicians" that's screwin' things up...pathological liars, lawyers and two-faced SOBs that they are.

jimHJJ(...I can say no more!...)

[piece-it pete]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

I believe every occupation of a foreign county by the US was preceded by an order to attack.

UN, huh. Will someone point out ONE instance of a UN success militarily?

Why would we agree to be subect to a body made up of largely Dictatorial appointees? THAT isn't hypocritical?

Yes, Congress was given the SAME intellegence used by the Pres and came to the SAME conclusion. This is a dead horse, as the Dem vice chair of the 9-11 committee is in agreement with this assessment. It is pure politics by the Dems.

I seem to remember that Hussein tossed the inspectors out. While they were there, and when they were "allowed" back in, they were given the runaround EVERY DAY. Yeah, we should bank on this.

The WMD report on Iraq made it clear that all Hussein had to do was bide his time and had every intention of rebuilding his capability if possible. And with oil money, he always has the means.

Elect Kerry, and he will magicly get France and Germany to commit to Iraq, the sun will shine, and the world will love us. Russia has ALWAYS been with us behind the scenes, and since the school bombings up front.

Speaking of the school bombings, consider that Kerry will "return things to normal" terrorist-wise, but if these folks will go after their kinda "supporters" (they killed French citizens as well) how is he going to do this?

Judging by his long well documented record he will accomplish this by cutting the militaries' budget repeatedly and documenting abuses, while boosting our soldiers' morale by awarding medals that he does not believe in.

There can be no "schedule" to pull out troops in Iraq without disaster. It took seven years to put Japan back together, and we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.

Which BTW has not looted, raped, and pillaged those countries, but rather supported our successful efforts to install democratically elected gov'ts.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

Those "rumors" of a draft came directly from the Dems. Recruitment in all branches of the military has met targets.

As noted above, Congress agreed with the Presidents' action, until they didn't. Sounds like the Kerry we know and love.

Most leaders, US and foreign, libs and cons knew something had to be done with Saddam. In earlier wars, the isolationists were called "know-nothings". These were usually Republicans. My, how times change!

The overriding problem with Saddam is simply this: he showed the Arab world that the US (and the UN, and the rest of the civilized world) was a sniveling coward of a society that was weak and scared, no backbone, a bunch of wimps.

This goes to the heart of the war on terror, that we are fighting a CULTURE of hate, not one individual. Saddam was playing to that culture, on the world stage, and doing it well.

The global approach is the ONLY one that will be successful in the long run. Want things back to "normal"? Better get used to our boys taking some casualties for a while.

Unless Kerry gets in. Then, he will wave his wonderful wand and all will be ok. He'll give Iraq to the terrorists (the result of a pullout, no matter what the rosy scenario), with a great supply of oil money and who knows what else, France and Germany veto power over our self defense, and all the people in the world, terrorists or otherwise, will throw down their weapons and cheer for the wonderful US of A.

It goes without saying we won't have to worry about any more attacks then.

Saudi Arabia and China. These statements always crack me up, because they are the same thing as saying nothing. Yes, we will make China and the Sauds do our will (or France, or Germany, or the UN). Jeez.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

More true unbiased commentary?

It is well known that the economy was going down when GWB came to power. That "surplus"? Wasn't that the result of record tax income and a GOP house? Nope, it was Clinton.

Plus, there is the elephant in the room, the fact that the "surplus" was bogus, sheer fiction. In the last debate Kerry mentioned he "fixed" Social Security with the massive tax increase that came through our SS withholding, to be saved until the boomers hit 65.

If I was Bush I'd have said, "But what did you do with it? You spent it, didn't you?" Because that's EXACTLY what Kerry (and others) did. There was NEVER a surplus.

And if there was, why spend it?

Tax cuts WORK. Nobel prize-winning economist Edward Prescott recently called them too small: ""Tax rates were not cut enough" . I am for fairness, I don't mind the wealthy getting the same cut as me. "Tax the rich" has a communistic sound to my ears.

BTW, the class list for America: Poor. Lower middle. Mid middle. High middle. Somewhat rich. Very rich. Democrat rich.

Kerry, the liberal Democrat, to the LEFT of both Hillary and Teddy!, is going to balance the budget? lol.

People have VERY short memories, and his proposed massive gov't programs total A LOT.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Ha! He's done more, put more abusers behind bars, than Clinton (the man in charge while this whole stinkin' corporate mess was cooking) did in 8 years!

"operationalizing of alternative energy sources" - right. Not to say it's not important to work on these things, but real world use is nowhere in the forseeable future. We need oil, like it or not. You think $2.00/gallon is high?

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

I believe this election is too close to call. The latest Washington Post poll (10-19, 3% margin of error) shows Bush holding his consistent lead, right now at 50% to 47%.

Failures of Bush. That sounds like a spin. Do I think Bush is perfect, that he's the be-all and end-all? Hardly. But he's a darnsite closer to the middle than Kerry, and does not skirt around tough calls dealing with the terrorists. Who do you think Osamas' pulling for?

Pete

[FLZapped]

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations

Gee, what about Nicaragua and Granada? Furthermore, you need to read the allt he resolutions that Sadam broke. Every single one of them said that any means available should be used to get him to comply. Furthermore, Annan dreamed up this illegal war crap to try and deflect the big hammer coming down on him regarding the oil for food scandel that he is in up to his neck.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." .

You may not be old enough to remeber that we lost up to 1000 per week in Vietnam. While WMDs were not found, all intelligence pointed to them, we now know why. I don't know why everyone gets stuck there. Saddam was offering 25 grand to every family of sucide bombers in Israel. Notice how these have since tapered? Notice the actions of Libyia? Notice the actions of Pakistan? Saddam had every intention of trying to get back to research and development of WMDs, part of Bushes speech about this indicated that he was a "gathering threat" - we now know this to be true. He was scamming the oil for food program and making millions as well as bribing whomever he thought could get him influence on the UN security coucil to get the sanctions against him eased, or removed. Racketeering 101.

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

I agree he has run up the deficit. So did Regan and it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. We survived that against all the doomesayers. We will survive this. Bush warned that it could be a possibility in one of his speeches, although I no longer remember whch one. Oh, one other thing, that surplus was PROJECTED.

While it is true that some wealthy people beinifited greatly by the tax break, the majority of those in that category are small businiess owners who pay taxes on their corporation as though it was personal income. Considering the hit our economy took after 9-11 and the fact it was already slowing down, the turn around is nothing less than amazing. Most economist will tell you that this was a suprizingly shallow and short lived recession.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

This is a lie, the economy already was in decline when he took office.

Conclusion

You're looking for an excuse to support that communist sympathizing socialist.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought"

And like Zoe Miller said of Kerry, you can be in the Senate, be wrong and not do much damage, but in the white house.....

Why aren't you having a fit over the fact that Kerry has not been in attendance ONE DAY since he started campaigning two years ago, yet he continues to draw his senatorial salary and partake in all its benifits.....if he was so damned concerned about the economy, he'd return his salary.

Why hasn't he signed that form 180 to release ALL his military records? Something to hide?

Why did he vote against the first gulf war and vote for this one? We had a somewhat bigger aliance then and what he would consider proper backing from the UN.(you know, "the test.")

Why did he vote against funding our troops this time? he complained that some of our the families of troops were buying stuff off the internet. If he would have had his way ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE!

Why did he go to France and meet with the North Vietnamese(twice) when he was STILL a commissioned officer of the US Navy, which is a direct violation of Military Code.

Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Why does he say he will build real aliances, yet says the current aliance of some 30 nations is the bribed and coerced? You really think that is a good strategy? Oh, I know, he means France, Germany, Russia, and China, who were all profiting and illegally dealing with Saddam under the oil for food program and circumventing the sanctions against him.

He says our troops are stretched too0 thin and that he would add two divisions to the army. Where is HE going to get them and how is he going to pay for it? A draft along with his democratic buddy Charlie Rangel who was the sponsor of the legislation that recently went down in flames??

He supports the kyoto treaty. Are you aware that to sign it would be to sign away our national soveriegnty? Read it sometime.

-Bruce
(Kerry is so scary)

[FLZapped]

B. Domestic Policy

From: http://kerry-04.org/about/issues.php

In December 2002, however, Kerry called for the end of "double taxation" on dividends, perceiving the need to promote investment and more accurate corporate valuation. A mere five weeks later, Kerry voted against President Bush's plan to eliminate double taxation, which was nonetheless passed by Congress and signed into law. Now, Candidate Kerry plans to restore the system of double taxation on corporate dividends if elected.

All too telling, Kerry also opposes the elimination of the infamous death tax. Kerry's latest vote against the Bush tax cuts marked at least his tenth vote against tax relief over the course of his Senate career. In true form, Kerry voted in favor the largest tax increase in the history of the United States under Bill Clinton.

Not even a consistent demand-sider, Kerry has voted against balanced budget amendments no less than five times, and logged three key votes against overall reductions in federal government spending. Nevertheless, in his campaign platform, Kerry says, "Bush's irresponsible economic policies have borrowed from future generations. I will cut the deficit in half in my first term, while investing in economic growth and American workers." In other words, John Kerry is prepared to cut deficits by increasing taxes, not by reducing spending.

Concerning Kerry's spending habits of taxpayer money, the fiscally conservative group Citizens Against Government Waste, John Kerry scores a dismal lifetime rating of 26%.

Finally, a Kerry position isn't a Kerry position without a flip-flop. In September 2001, Kerry said, "The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn't do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy.... No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. ...you don't want to raise taxes."

Now, however, Kerry says in his election platform, "I will roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to invest in education and healthcare." In other words, Kerry advocates the redistribution of income to achieve social goals (a.k.a. Socialism), rather than allowing citizens the maximal use of their wealth to create more wealth, to the betterment of all.

Social Security & Healthcare

When it comes to the costliest, most economically dangerous entitlements in our country -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- John Kerry opposes desperately needed reforms, such as partial privatization, that would take America off this precipitous and unsustainable path. In his platform, Kerry offers the basis of a plan to offer near-universal health coverage to American, saying, "My plan expands health care coverage to 96 percent of Americans and 99 percent of all children."

What John Kerry is really saying, though, is that he doesn't believe in the free market, and would see the United States spiral into the same socialized healthcare abyss that now consumes Canada and many European nations. (How does a 50% tax rate strike you? -Bruce)

Also, for better or for worse, Kerry is no fan of Al Gore's Social Security "Lock Box," if his congressional record is any indication, voting at least five times to raid the fund.

In his platform, however, Kerry revisits the lock box theme, vowing to "take Social Security off the table when balancing the budget." At the same time, Kerry opposes even partial privatization of Social Security, on the grounds privatization would "cost" $1 trillion, causing deficits to spiral. By "cost" of course, Senator Kerry means loss of government revenue. But why would this matter, you might ask, if Kerry, in "lock box" fashion, vows to take Social Security "off the table" when balancing the budget? Good question.

[piece-it pete]

Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

[FLZapped]

Conclusion

John Kerry, a man of the people:

http://kerry-04.org/about/homes.php

[JSE]

Joe? Where are you man. I defended you in your last post on 9/23 when you said,

" Accordingly, I hereby commit to returning no sooner or later than 24 hours after my post to answer counter arguments. "

I took that to mean you would defend yourself. So far your just lobbing political rhetoric. Are you able to respond? Do you want to respond? Or, do you just like making statements and don't really have the knowledge to back them up?

Looks like you have about 30 more minutes.

Just wondering?

JSE

[dean_martin]

...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.

What we need are term limits and the original concept of citizen-leaders, who will return to farming or packing pickles or whatever after their public service...it's the class(and I use that term loosely) of "professional politicians" that's screwin' things up...pathological liars, lawyers and two-faced SOBs that they are.

jimHJJ(...I can say no more!...)

C'mon, RL, where you been livin'? Some commune in Montana? First, let's look at our founding fathers.
Alexander Hamilton - lawyer
John Jay - lawyer
John Adams - lawyer
Thomas Jefferson - well-read in law and studied law
James Madison - well-read in law and studied law

Those who weren't lawyers were well-to-do merchants or large landholders.

It was Alexander Hamilton in his essays in the Federalist Papers who argued for a strong central government, one even stronger than the one we have. He argued for a representative form of government because he didn't trust the pickle-packers and family farmers with gov't operations. How can we go back to something we never had? Our system breeds the professional politician, especially in our version of the House of Lords - the U.S. Senate.

I also need to address this changing horses in mid-stream sentiment that a lot of folks seem to possess. Who's the recipient of "the message"? The same people who attacked us while we were on the horse we're on now? They attacked us and so far have gotten away with it. Signs and intelligence were there that attacks were possible yet our horse did nothing. My question is what message do we send if we keep riding the same old tired nag? Sometimes you have to shoot a horse with a broken leg. -

Tim, lawyer

[FLZapped]

Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

I think he has also admitted to throwing other peoples medals.....

Yeah, what a guy.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

A. Foreign Policy

The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers

The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

[dean_martin]

...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.

RL, please don't think I'm pickin' on you because I've responded to your post twice. But, you're the only one who openned the door for me to get my message out. Here's one big difference I see. Unfortunately, it's a difference that doesn't seem to make a difference with most people until some tragedy hits.

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE

Under Governor Bush, Texas led the way in making it harder for ordinary
citizens to get their day in court. What can we expect if the
corporate-backed "tort reform" movement succeeds in its dream: spreading
Lone Star justice across America?

By Stephanie Mencimer
SPECIAL TO FACING SOUTH/SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

On June 23, 1999, 24-year-old Juan Martinez and his uncle Jose Inez Rangel
were hydro-testing a pipe at the Phillips Chemical plant in Pasadena, Texas.
The pipe was about 10 feet from a reactor that manufactured plastic used in
drinking cups, food containers, and medical equipment. At a crucial moment,
plant operators opened the valves in the reactor out of sequence, sending an
excess of a volatile chemical into the reactor, where it mixed with a
catalyst to create a vapor cloud-and a fiery explosion. The blast coated
Martinez and Rangel with 500-degree molten plastic. They were burned alive.

Martinez and Rangel were not the first workers to die at the Phillips plant.
All told, 30 workers had been killed and hundreds severely wounded at the
plant in the previous 11 years. The worst of the accidents happened in 1989,
when an explosion killed 23 people at the plant. The chemical company paid
out $40 million to compensate for the death of one of the victims.

In the lawsuit filed a decade later by Martinez's widow, attorney John Eddie
Williams would write, "No other serial killer in this state has been allowed
to go unpunished and virtually unbridled for so long."
A few months after he wrote that line, Williams was downtown taking the
deposition of a worker from the plant. Williams looked out the window, he
says, and saw smoke. Another explosion at the plant. And another worker
dead-a man who had survived the 1989 blast. Seventy others were hurt,
including four men who suffered third-degree burns over half their bodies.
The explosion set off car alarms a mile away and closed nearby schools. "The
guy being deposed would have been there," says Williams.

All the pieces were in place for a big verdict-a statement from a jury of
average citizens who would punish the company for its long record of death
and indifference. After he presented the case to a mock jury, Williams says,
the mock jurors were so horrified by the facts some of them began boycotting
Phillips products.

But Phillips had little reason to worry. The company didn't even bother to
make a settlement offer to Martinez's family. It knew it could come into
court cushioned by a series of "tort-reform" measures championed by George
W. Bush during his first term as governor of Texas. Among them was a cap on
punitive damages, signed into law by Bush in 1995, which limited such awards
to the greater of $200,000 or twice the economic damages, plus up to
$750,000 for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering.

Bush hailed the cap as way of reducing "frivolous" lawsuits. In order for
the jury in the Martinez case to award punitive damages in excess of the
cap, it would have to find that Phillips had "intentionally and knowingly"
killed Martinez. In layman's terms, the legalese meant that the aggrieved
had to prove Phillips murdered Martinez, on purpose-a standard no civil case
in Texas has ever met.

The jury, which was not told about the damage cap during the trial, found
Phillips had been negligent and acted with malice in Martinez's death. It
awarded his widow, daughter, and parents $7.8 million in actual damages and
$110 million in punitive damages-the equivalent of one month's profits for
the company. But state law would reduce the punitive damages to $3.2
million, making the entire award a fraction of one percent of Phillips's
annual profits.

For Texas trial lawyers, awards of that size give mega-corporations like
Phillips the green light to make business and safety decision based on
life-versus-profit calculations they term "Pinto math." That's the crude
calculation used by the Ford Motor Company in the late 1960s and early 1970s
when it decided it was cheaper to let hundreds of people die each year than
to spend about $5 per vehicle to prevent Pintos' gas tanks from exploding in
rear-end accidents. Without the threat of high punitive damages in wrongful
death lawsuits, Texas oil and chemical companies like Phillips have little
incentive to spend money to improve unsafe plants and pipelines. Certainly
the government isn't going to make an impact: Federal officials cited
Phillips for serious safety violations in the 1999 explosion that killed
Martinez and Rangel, but fined the company just $140,000. Steven Daniels, a
researcher with the American Bar Foundation, says "Workers are just at the
mercy now of their employers and the insurance companies."

It's a state of affairs whose genesis can be traced back to Bush's long-shot
run for governor of Texas in 1994. Bush won by running a relentlessly
on-message campaign, harping on three or four key issues - among them his
proposed limit on "junk lawsuits" by consumers and injured workers. In
January 1995, just a few days after he took office, Bush met with members of
a corporate-funded group, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, at a salsa factory
outside Austin. Declaring a legislative emergency on out-of-control
lawsuits, Bush said "Tort reform is the most constructive and positive and
meaningful economic development plan Texas can adopt." Calling the laws a
"job creation package," Bush went on to sign a series of measures that
severely restricted citizens' ability to seek civil justice.

Now, as Bush seeks his second term in the White House, he and his backers
have gleefully attacked Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards as
a parasitic trial lawyer - and Bush is fighting for another four years in
office in which he hopes to get a chance to finally spread his Texas tort
reform agenda nationwide. "He's trying to take some of the worst policy with
the state of Texas and import it nationally," says Austin plaintiff attorney
Mark Perlmutter. Nine years into the transformation of the Lone Star State's
civil justice system, the experience of Texas is a preview of what the rest
of the country might look like if Bush succeeds.

THE LIONS OF TORT REFORM

Whether they realize it or not, Americans are constantly hearing pitches for
tort reform. A famous example is the case of the too-hot coffee from
McDonald's. In 1994, Stella Liebeck, an 80-year-old woman from New Mexico,
won a $2.7 million jury award from McDonald's for burns she suffered after
spilling coffee purchased at one of the chain's drive-through windows.

Jay Leno and other talk-show comedians had a blast, riffing on lawyers and
hot beverages for monologue laughs. The punch lines, however, wouldn't have
worked too well with a more detailed set-up: Liebeck suffered third-degree
burns on her private parts. She needed an eight-day hospital stay plus skin
grafts to recover from the injury. At first, she had asked McDonalds to
simply pay her medical bills, but the company refused. Documents uncovered
during her lawsuit showed coffee buyers had filed more than 700 claims
against McDonalds alleging that its coffee was too hot for human
consumption. When the case went to trial, jurors did indeed award $2.7
million in punitive damages - to punish McDonalds for failing to remedy the
problem that it knew was injuring lots of people. A judge subsequently
slashed the award to $480,000 - a detail that late-night comedians and tort
reformers haven't seen fit to mention, either.

Facts and nuance notwithstanding, the tort-reform lobby thrives by
convincing the public that courthouses nationwide are passing out
multimillion-dollar awards for spilled coffee every day. The real victims,
tort reformers claim, are thousands of small businesses that are careening
into bankruptcy as they try to defend themselves from frivolous claims. And
in the early 1990s, they began a massive PR campaign that insisted that
Texas, with some of the best trial lawyers in the country, was a "plaintiffs
' paradise" and a magnet attracting people to the state to play the "lawsuit
lottery." Tort reformers asserted that the legal system needed an overhaul
to make Texas more business-friendly. Tops on their wish list was a cap on
punitive damages.

To push that agenda, Texas's tort-reform pioneers coalesced under the banner
of Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), which opened for business in 1994, the
year Bush ran for governor. At its kickoff, founder Richard Weekley
proclaimed that lawsuit abuse was "the No.1 threat to Texas' economic
future." Like most other tort-reform offensives, TLR's seized on a populist
notion with adherents from coast to coast-namely, that lawyers are ruining
America by bankrupting corporations with outrageous claims against honest
companies. Yet some of TLR's die-hard members hardly seem like innocent,
abused entrepreneurs. A sampling:

. Enron CEO Ken Lay gave $25,000 in start-up funds for TLR. Lay had written
to Bush in 1994 that if Texas didn't do something about its "permissive"
legal climate, Enron might just have to leave the state. Today, after more
than 4,000 Enron employees have lost their jobs and their retirement funds
invested in the company, Lay's reasons for wanting legal immunity seem
pretty obvious. But back then, Lay had more pedestrian concerns about its
gas and energy operations. In 1994, one of the company's methanol gas plants
exploded in Pasadena, Texas, injuring several people working nearby. A
neighboring chemical corporation sued Enron to block the plant from coming
back on line, arguing that it had a long history of flagrant violations that
were endangering workers.

. Richard Weekley, the driving force behind TLR, is a strip mall developer
whose family owns David Weekley Homes, one of the nations' largest
homebuilding companies. David Weekley Homes is notorious in Texas for shoddy
home construction and a host of worker safety violations. Dozens of
homeowners with cracked and shifting foundations have attempted to file suit
against the firm, alleging that their new homes began falling apart almost
immediately after they moved in.

. James Leininger, founder of the Texas Public Policy Institute, which did
the early polling to come up with the term "lawsuit abuse." Leininger heads
up Kinetic Concepts, a company that makes high-tech hospital beds that have
prompted a rash of lawsuits from patients and nurses alleging that the
rotating beds had dropped or crushed patients.

. Jim "Mattress Mac" McIngvale, another TLR funder, is a furniture store
owner who got sued after a 300-pound African lion kept at his Texas Flea
Market mauled an 8-year-old girl and tore off part of her skull in 1987. The
girl required extensive reconstructive surgery and faced the prospect of
permanent brain damage. Her parents, who had no health insurance, sued
McIngvale for allowing the lion (which was owned by somebody else) on the
premises.

The questionable business habits of many of Texas' leading tort reformers is
one reason their efforts had been mostly unsuccessful before 1994. But Bush
changed things. Austin consumer attorney David Bragg says Bush was the
friendly face TLR and the others needed to make lawsuit reform palatable to
the public. "In the same way that Reagan legitimized the Christian right,
Bush legitimized tort reform in Texas," Bragg says.

Backing tort reformers, the governor endeared himself to a broad coalition
of wealthy industry groups that had been attempting to push through limits
on civil lawsuits nationally since the mid-1980s, particularly the tobacco
industry. The year of Bush's first gubernatorial campaign, the tobacco
industry set aside $100,000 to underwrite a public relations campaign in
Texas heralding the epidemic of "lawsuit abuse" in the state. Tobacco money
also helped create Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and provided $15,000 in
seed money to TLR.

When Bush lined up on their side, that money started flowing his way. People
and groups associated with tort reform donated more than $4 million to his
statewide campaigns, more than any interest category other than oil and gas
companies. As Bush's longtime political advisor (and former tobacco industry
consultant) Karl Rove explained to the Washington Post in 2000, once Bush
declared war on "junk lawsuits," "business groups flocked to us."

The tort reform campaign also gave Bush a big stick with which to bash trial
lawyers like John Eddie Williams, who plow their multi-million legal fees
back into the Democratic party. Trial lawyers are, along with unions, one of
the biggest sources of funding for the party.

One thing the measures promoted by Bush didn't do was combat frivolous
lawsuits. After all, it wasn't the little "slip and fall" suits Enron was
worried about. As Williams says, "Frivolous lawsuits by definition are worth
nothing." Besides, a state rule had been on the books for 15 years that
allowed for sanctions against lawyers who file groundless lawsuits. "What
they've done is outlaw big recoveries in good lawsuits," says attorney
Perlmutter.

And despite all the rhetoric, Texas never suffered from a "litigation
explosion."

"There was never a time when Texas juries gave away lots of money all the
time," says Steven Daniels, a researcher at the American Bar Foundation who
has studied the impact of Bush's tort reforms on Texas. "Juries in Texas are
almost always stingy." Bragg, a former lawyer in the state attorney general'
s consumer protection office, once did a survey of the awards granted under
the state's consumer protection act, which allowed defrauded consumers to
recover triple damages from misbehaving businesses. It was hardly the major
threat to the state's economy that the tort reformers portrayed. Before the
law was eviscerated in 1995 by Bush's tort reforms, Bragg found that
plaintiffs won their cases less than half the time in Dallas, and even when
they did "win," they rarely got any money. "But tort reformers decided there
was a problem and mounted a major effort to change that law," he says.

Under his campaign pledge of bipartisanship, Bush managed to persuade the
Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock to go along with a package of
measures that severely limited citizens' ability to win damages against
corporations, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. The tort
reformers couldn't have been more pleased. Ralph Wayne, head of the Texas
Civil Justice League and co-chair of Bush's 2000 presidential campaign,
says, "It is amazing the way someone like George Bush can make a difference.
It was a marvelous year for us. Had it not been for George Bush and his
persuasiveness we would not have been as successful."

Those bipartisan "reforms" had their desired effect. Since Bush signed the
bill in 1995, the number of personal injury suits filed in Texas has
plummeted 40 percent, despite a rapid increase in the state's population.
Consumer lawsuits against sleazy car dealers, shoddy mobile home dealers,
and other crooked businesses have become almost nonexistent, as have the
lawyers who used to handle them. Daniels says lawyers simply can't afford to
take cases that don't hold the possibility of punitive damages or awards for
mental anguish because the actual amount of money involved in such cases is
often so small. "Whether it was intended to or not, it may have the effect
of cutting off the access to the courts. If [lawyers] don't want to take
your case, you don't get into court," says Daniels. The behavior that
spawned many of those suits in the past hasn't disappeared. But without the
lawsuits, the public simply doesn't know about it.

TORT REFORM CURE-ALL

The first thing President Bush did this year when he went to meet with newly
elected California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was declare his intention to
discuss his campaign on frivolous lawsuits. "We need a little tort reform in
this great state of California," Bush announced. "Unfair lawsuits harm a lot
of good and small businesses. There are too many large settlements that
leave the plaintiffs with a small sum and the lawyers with a fortune.Job
creation will occur when we've got legal reforms."

As president, Bush has continued to chat up tort reform at every
opportunity. In fact, now that he's passed most of his tax cuts and an
education bill, tort reform often seems to be the administration's only
domestic policy initiative and its only answer to any of the nation's ills.
What's the Bush plan for helping 44 million uninsured Americans? Medical
malpractice "reform," a bill in Congress that would impose Texas-style
lawsuit restrictions on the rest of the country, capping punitive damages in
lawsuits against drug companies, hospitals, nursing homes, and medical
device manufacturers. The White House response to the 3 million people who
lost jobs in the administration's first three years? Class action reform,
legislation that would federalize most class action lawsuits, essentially
eliminating those pesky complaints against Wal-Mart in California alleging
that the company stiffed its low-wage workers on earned overtime.

After listening to the rhetoric for the past eight years, at least one
Republican small businessman back in Texas is no longer buying it. A few
years ago, if you had asked Houston small business owner and Republican Walt
Shofner whether he supported Bush and his war on lawsuits, he would have
said yes. But in 2000, Shofner discovered the reality behind the PR
campaign. His company designed software for insurance companies, and had
recently beaten out a larger competitor on a bid to upgrade software at
Prudential Life in New Jersey. Afterwards, the competitor, Computer Science
Corp. (CSC), accused his firm of violating a nondisclosure contract and
asked American Express and Prudential to cancel their contracts with
Shofner, which they did. Shofner sued, arguing that CSC, a corporate giant
with nearly $10 billion in revenues in 2000, was simply trying to squelch
competition. The jury agreed and awarded Shofner $8 million in punitive
damages.

But after the jury announced its verdict, the judge declared that he had to
reduce the award to $200,000 because of the damage caps Bush signed in 1995.
Shofner-as well as the jury-was shocked. Fred Kronz, one of the jurors in
the case, says he couldn't believe the news. Kronz says the jurors took
their job seriously and spent a lot of time trying to come up with an
adequate punishment for CSC, which they believed was clearly in the wrong.
During the trial, everyone in the courtroom knew about the damage cap except
the jurors, who only learned of it after they announced their verdict,
making their deliberations seem like a charade, says Kronz.

The decision essentially killed Shofner's business. He says, "CSC had no
trouble paying me off. They got two or three million in revenue after I left
[the other firms]. I got zapped for chump change by my competition. They
have almost a monopoly on the software now."

Shofner is now a vocal critic of lawsuit restrictions: "Tort reform assumes
that all plaintiffs are crooks. But if a case gets far enough to get an
award, that's not frivolous. I was a Republican. I guess I still am. But I'
ve seen the light. . . . Any small business person in Texas is at risk."

UNLITIGATED, UNPROTECTED

In fact, Texans may not become fully aware of what they've lost through the
state's tort reform until they need a lawyer. That's what happened to Jacque
Smith last year. In November 2003, Smith's 85-year-old mother, an Alzheimer'
s patient, was living at the Heritage Duvall Gardens nursing home in Austin.
Late one night, a staffer entered Smith's mother's room and allegedly raped
the elderly woman. Another employee witnessed the assault, but apparently
didn't bother to report it to anyone and went home after his shift finished.
Smith only learned about the assault because the witness mentioned it to
someone at the home during an unrelated conversation later the next day.
After her mother was examined at a hospital, the assailant was arrested and
charged with aggravated sexual assault.

Smith then consulted a lawyer about filing suit against the nursing home for
poorly supervising its employees. In the past, such a suit might have
garnered a multi-million dollar settlement or jury verdict for the victim.
Texas has some of the worst nursing homes in the country. A 2002 study by
the special investigations division of the U.S. House Committee on
Government Reform found 40 percent of Texas nursing homes committed
violations of federal regulations that caused harm to nursing home residents
or placed them at risk of death or serious injury. More than ninety percent
did not meet federal staffing standards. The poor conditions of Texas
nursing homes led to a cottage industry in the legal profession, whose
lawsuits posed much larger threats than any state sanctions.

A Harvard University study found that nearly 9 out of 10 nursing home
plaintiffs received compensation, a success rate that the study deemed "off
the scale" in personal injury litigation, and a sign that the negligence as
well as the severity of injuries in the cases was clear-cut. Rather than
pledge to clean up its act, the nursing home industry lobbied hard for the
passage of legislation that would put the lawyers out of business. The state
passed the nursing homes' favored medical malpractice bill in September
2003, capping pain and suffering awards at $250,000.

The new law has produced the results desired by its backers. When Smith
looked for an attorney, she discovered her first hurdle might be simply
finding one willing to take the case. The first attorney she called
declined, as few lawyers in Texas will now handle such a complaint. Then she
contacted Bragg, who explained to her that the most her mother could win
would be $250,000, because there were no economic damages involved. Smith's
mother, after all, didn't have a job to lose and she didn't incur
significant medical bills. After taxes and legal fees, she would receive at
most $100,000. That would make her ineligible for Medicaid, meaning the
money would end up being funneled back into the nursing home industry that
failed her in the first place.

As a result, Smith says she's unsure whether she will pursue legal action
because she worries that any money that might result from it would not be
used to improve the quality of her mother's life. But she is frustrated by
the prospect of simply dropping the case. "It feels like somebody should be
held accountable," she says.

According to a study by the Dallas Morning News, since the bill's passage
medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas have fallen off by 80 percent.
Ironically, in giving advice to citizens on how to choose a nursing home,
the Texas Attorney General's office suggests using the number of lawsuits
against a home as a good gauge of quality. Its web site counsels, "A nursing
home that gets sued frequently should not be your first choice." How the
public will make these choices in the future? The web site doesn't say..

To see a full copy of this story and additional information, visit:
www.southernstudies.org

#

Stephanie Mencimer was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her
reporting in The Washington Monthly on the battle over medical malpractice
and tort reform. She is the author of "The Price of Confession," which
appeared in the Fall/Winter 2003/2004 edition of Southern Exposure. Funding
for this story was provided by the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the Fund
for Investigative Journalism, and will appear in the upcoming edition of
Southern Exposure magazine.

[dean_martin]

The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

So, you've bought in totally to this propaganda of half truths spewed forth from the mouths of people who weren't there and snippets of testimony and lines from books taken out of context. What is a young man to do? He goes off to war with no real goal or objective yet he kills and is shot at just like those who fought with an objective. He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes? There's one about "patriotism" that I think, unfortunately, fits about half the country.

[FLZapped]

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE

Right, and Edwards, using junk science, sued a bunch of obstetricians in his area and caused them to change the way they did deliveries. They were forced, because of Edwards suits, to do only C-Sectons, which are more dangerous to the mother and the baby, increases hospital time and drives up medical costs.


Made him millions, enough to buy three houses. Another man of the people.

-Bruce