There Is Still Time

Sat 02/28/04 at 12:03 pm

Fearing ‘Unprecedented Land Grab’ During Election Year, Group Urges 60,000 Interior Department Employees to Use Tipline

Concerns Grow About Accelerated Industry Rush for Favors if Bush Re-election Appears Uncertain

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ — The nonprofit Campaign to Protect America’s Lands (CPAL) announced that it is sending an email today to 59,684 Department of Interior employees urging them to use a confidential tipline (1- 866-LANDTIP or http://www.landtip.org) to report any new anti-environment rules or other steps related to America’s public lands, parks or wilderness areas that may crop up in the coming months. CPAL’s goal is to thwart a whole new round of special-interest proposals that are expected to clog Interior if panicked industry executives come to believe that President Bush is unlikely to serve a second term.

”Our concern is that industry demands for special treatment at Interior will go beyond the fever pitch they’ve been at already if companies start to worry that President Bush is fighting a losing re-election battle,” CPAL Director Peter Altman explained. ”These companies literally will start grabbing for anything that they can get their hands on, and the Bush Administration likely will go even further to subvert the democratic process in order to accommodate its powerful friends.”

From the first day, Bush has tried to change everything as fast as he can. He has always looked like someone who doubts he’ll get a second term. Keep an eye on the store while he is out showing his leadership. mjh


‘Where in the Bible…?’

Sat 02/28/04 at 11:57 am

Sigh. This is what it has come to: reporters asking ”where in the Bible…?” We have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. We do not have a national bible; we do not have a national 10 Commandments. How is our nation strengthened by circumstances that lead to a press briefing that sounds like it should be in Arabic? Ayatollah Bush and his neo-con mullahs. Fundamentalism will destroy this nation, from within. mjh

Gay marriage a complex political, legal issue..

”After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,” Bush said. ”Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”

Excerpt: White House Press Briefing

QUESTION: What specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?

[Scott] MCCLELLAN, [Bush’s Press Secretary]: Well, that’s why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The president made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue.

QUESTION: So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women?

MCCLELLAN: That’s why the president believes that this is an important value and an enduring institution to defend. …

QUESTION: Scott, following up on that, on the faith issue, the president has talked about this is intertwined with faith, but the Bible has been hotly contested on this issue. Some are saying that it’s not in the Bible; some are saying it is.

Where in the Bible has the president found…

MCCLELLAN: I think the president described it from his views about where his beliefs are and the principle of this decision.

QUESTION: He talks about faith a great deal, and he talks about how his foundation, his new foundation after 40 is based on faith.

Where in the Bible…


‘the largest civil rights movement in a generation’

Sat 02/28/04 at 11:56 am

New York college town joins fray with 25 same-sex weddings

”I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” [Mayor Jason] West [of the New York state village of New Paltz] said, his voice booming through the outdoor public address system. ”What we’re witnessing in the village today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement in a generation.”

Another nail in the coffin of personal rights by Regina Purcell, Staff Writer

The political ploy by President George W. Bush this week to gain a foothold in the religious zealots rank of voters is unnecessary. His support of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages was softened by his next statement.

Bush said the proposed amendment would let states allow civil unions for same-sex couples. What’s the point?

The point is big business, such as insurance companies that don’t want the responsibility of covering a family that has two mothers or two fathers. …

As the election year is on us, it is the only opportunity to stop this administration before it’s too late. Can Americans, a huge majority living in poverty levels, afford to allow a president who misleads the public, has compensated big business to the expense of middle America, has slashed domestic programs to pieces, and continues to whittle away our personal freedoms?

It’s not just the “War on Terror.” It’s not just the personal freedoms being completely eroded through the Patriot Act. It’s our future, too.


Duck Scalia!

Fri 02/27/04 at 4:13 pm

Scalia, Lawyers Went Hunting While Cases Were Pending Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the guest of a Kansas law school two years ago and went pheasant hunting on a trip arranged by the school’s dean, all within weeks of hearing two cases in which the dean was a lead attorney.

Scalia later sided with [his huntin’ buddies] in both cases. [mjh: good news for Dick Cheney!]

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Scalia had been a guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on Air Force Two when they went duck hunting in southern Louisiana. That trip came shortly after the Supreme Court had agreed to hear Cheney’s appeal seeking to keep secret his national energy policy task force.

Federal law says that ”any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned.” By tradition and court policy, justices are free to determine for themselves what constitutes a conflict. …

Scalia said that if Supreme Court justices were prohibited from taking such a trip, then they “would be permanently barred from social contact with all governors, since at any given point in time virtually all states have matters pending before us.” … [mjh: gosh, no one would ever want to be a supreme court justice!]

The Dishonorable Antonin Scalia“The controlled shooting part of the trip was good,” Graves said. “They plant birds, and that gives you a better attempt to get some birds.”

Added Bond of Scalia, “We stayed the night and had a delightful time. He was just charming to be around.” [mjh: awww, let’s not hang him afterall.]

Impeach Supreme Court Justice Scalia Petition

Whereas, by his actions, Justice Scalia has tarnished the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Be it resolved, the legislative branch of our government shall forthwith seek diligently to determine if there is cause for the impeachment of Justice Scalia.

I never sign online petions — until now. The petition’s list of Scalia’s unethical acts doesn’t include appointing Bush as President while Scalia’s wife worked on the transition team and his son sought a job in the administration. mjh

”The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.”
– Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, 03/18/03

Search blog for Scalia


Ralph!

Fri 02/27/04 at 3:38 pm

David S. Broder: How Nader could hurt Kerry’s game plan

Nader has claimed in interviews that his candidacy opens ”a second front” against Bush and would appeal greatly to disillusioned conservatives and Republicans. That is malarkey. Republican pollster Bill McInturff surveyed likely voters last month and found that the subgroups most prone to consider voting for Nader were ”younger white men, liberals and Democrats, particularly in the mid-Atlantic and Pacific regions,” the Democratic heartland. “This data makes it clear that Nader’s entry into the presidential race will have no impact on Republican or Bush voters,” he wrote.

If you assume, as most Republicans and Democrats I’ve interviewed do, that Bush prefers as few debates as possible this year, Nader’s candidacy gives Bush a great card to play. Whoever the sponsor, Bush as the incumbent can bargain for Nader’s inclusion — or use the issue of Nader’s role to delay negotiations and reduce the number of debates that can be scheduled.


Christian coup d’état

Fri 02/27/04 at 3:29 pm

Rich Lowry on Christians in America on National Review Online

America is in the midst of a new Great Awakening. …

[O]rthodox Christians have an enormous influence on national life through the Bush administration. What trial lawyers are to John Edwards, the orthodox are to Bush — his indispensable political base. According to Green, roughly 75 percent of evangelicals voted for Bush. White evangelicals accounted for as much as 40 percent of his total vote. Another 20 percent came from traditional Catholics and serious mainline Protestants. The Bush presidency should be stamped: “Brought to you by orthodox Christian believers.” …

As Walter Russell Mead writes in his brilliant forthcoming book, Power, Terror, Peace, and War: “The rise in the number of evangelical Protestants, combined with their increasing levels of affluence, political participation and education, suggests that for the next generation at least, we will be witnessing the rise and consolidation of an evangelical establishment that will view America’s world role in a different way than the waning and dying mainstream Protestant establishment that once set the Wilsonian agenda.”

This dynamic is already evident. The divide with Europe is partly driven by faith, as secular Europeans cringe at American religiosity. America’s strong support for Israel is a product of a potent alliance between evangelicals and hawkish Jews. Evangelicals have supported an extraordinary amount of human-rights activism recently on issues from religious persecution to sex trafficking to AIDS. Bush has tapped into that idealism and made it an important aspect of his war on terror.

Domestically, the influence of Bush’s orthodox base can be seen in his faith-based initiative, his signing of a partial-birth-abortion ban and his opposition to gay marriage, among other things. The rap against evangelicals used to be that they were intolerant, but they have lately demonstrated their ability to work with conservative Jews and Catholics in a new, powerful traditionalist ecumenism.

The fervor over The Passion has taken many observers by surprise. It shouldn’t, and you ain’t seen nothing yet. [mjh: be afraid, be very afraid — oh, but that’s the Bush Doctrine, isn’t it?]

Dick Lowry proves we are, not just a Christian Nation, but an Orthodox Christian Nation.

Notice that line of Lowry’s proving the Radical Jihadist Christians are really tolerant: they form stategic alliances with other religious people. Guess atheists like me will just have to pray for tolerance, too.

Now that “Christians Rule!“, we can expect more commercial triumphs like the Jesus Action Figure. mjh

Hi, I'm Jesus and I love Dickhead Lowry!Jesus Action Figures

Biblical Action Figures are approximately 6 inches in height. Each figure includes background play scenery printed on laminated paperboard.

[mjh: They’re tax-deductible! Kidding… I think.]


Too Late for the National Parks?

Fri 02/27/04 at 3:08 pm

ABQjournal: Bush Plundering National ParksBy Richard B. Smith
Retired Parks Official

Wildfires get all the television air time and newspaper column inches when it comes to harm done to national parks, but there exists a much greater threat to parks: the Bush administration.

If that sounds like overheated hype and election-year politics, you can ignore my concerns as an individual, which are based on 31 years of experience as a park ranger or senior manager in various parks and regional offices of the National Park Service.

Instead, consider the unmistakable message that emerged from an October 2003 survey by the Campaign to Protect America’s Lands (CPAL) of nearly 1,400 National Park Service employees.

Nine out of 10 park rangers and other in-house experts responding to the survey are worried that Bush administration decisions affecting national parks are based more on politics and special-interest deals than on science and what is best for the parks. …

Every month seems to bring a new outrage aimed at decreasing protection for national parks and public lands in a way that means more profit for Bush campaign contributors. With this kind of unprecedented White House assault on national parks and other public lands, the pessimism of those entrusted to safeguard our national parks appears to be well founded.

The lack of optimism about the future of parks and lands is evident in the survey findings: 79 percent of respondents said that employee morale is lower than it was a couple of years ago. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed expressed a great deal of concern about “special interest influence on park policies/decisions.” Eighty-eight percent indicated a great deal of concern that “decisions are being influenced by politics rather than professional experience/science.”

The bottom line: More than four in five of surveyed National Park Service employees expressed a “great deal of concern” about being able to protect park resources. …

As a Parks Service employee responding to the survey put it: “Our parks are being threatened by special interest money and politics, which are serving to undermine a lot of our environmental protections. I think that if the American public really understood what was going on they would be outraged, but by the time the damage is realized it may be too late.”

——————————————————–
Richard B. Smith of Placitas retired in 1994 from his National Parks Service position as an associate regional director for resources management of the Southwest Regional Office. He previously served as superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns.
—–
Related, but a different group:

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: American Taliban

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.


Trustworthy Voting

Wed 02/25/04 at 8:46 pm

Commentary: Should International Monitors Observe U.S. Elections? By Debra Link

Electronic voting machines can easily be tampered with to affect the outcome. …

It is arguable that the office of the President of the U.S. was taken illegally. …

World hegemony through militaristic means (something this administration forthrightly claims) is on a heedless roll. This administration will not relinquish power easily.

I suggest a national petition drive calling for international monitoring of our Presidential election. This could be launched conceivably on the internet. If international media picked up on the fact that multitudes of Americans were so insecure with their eroding democracy that they were entreating the larger world community to observe their election process this November- well, it would be quite telling.

Everyone should be familiar with rising concerns over the trustworthiness of the election process in the US. Diebold is usually the subject of these discussions. In the full version of her commentary, Link mentions a company called ES&S (Election Systems & Software), as well. Her specific examples are alarming. This president, chosen by his father’s judges, believes he was chosen by Jesus. He is on a mission to change everything as fast as he can. What exactly is ”unimaginable” anymore? mjh

Two long, recent articles on this issue:

Politics: How Safe Is Your E-Vote?Elections go digital, but experts fear a crash
BY LEE NICHOLS, The Austin Chronicle

A Better Ballot Box? New electronic voting systems pose risks as well as solutions
By Rebecca Mercuri, Bryn Mawr College

Search this blog: Diebold

Google News Search: Diebold OR ES&S


Shake off your stupor

Wed 02/25/04 at 11:06 am

In the long run, Americans favor more freedom, not less. Denying rights goes against America’s self-image. Even many conservatives are leery of amending the Constitution. Prohibition was the last time we amended the Constitution to restrict rights and freedom; you know how well that turned out.

There is absolutely no doubt that one day, gays and lesbians will be free to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. No doubt.

Before that day comes, there will be a battle with people who have no hesitation in denying countless Americans a whole host of rights. Ironically, these people call themselves conservatives, though they are all about radical change. This is just one bar in the cage they are building around America. They are our jihadists, our taliban, fanatic followers of the one true word of god (as they see it). Not content to live and let live, not able to do unto others as they would have done onto them, the Radical Right will destroy this village to save it. We cannot allow that.

After they attempt a constitutional amendment to dictate who has the state’s blessing in declaring their love, the Radical Right will move on to an amendment denying women control over their own bodies and their families. Then, an amendment to allow Arnold Schwartzeneggar to become president (after Jeb Bush, perhaps).

We must stop this. But, if we fail, the pendulum will swing and some of these changes will be undone (some things are already ruined forever). That’s assuming we haven’t all become slack-jawed bible thumping reality TV watching apathetic illiterates in the meantime. Who benefits from ignorance? Who benefits from apathy or despair? Who benefits from passivity? The Powers-that-be. Shake off your stupor and fight back! mjh

mjh’s blog — Expanding Freedom


Expanding Freedom

Wed 02/25/04 at 10:43 am

ABQjournal: Get State Out of Marriage Role By Mary Ellen S. Capek

As a social institution, civil marriage has changed considerably over time, and the laws have followed.

When a woman married in the 19th century, she lost all her civil rights. Women and children were chattel, the property of their husbands and fathers. My great-grandmother was not able to inherit property and would have lost custody of her children had she sought to leave an abusive marriage.

As recently as 1967, a Caucasian man and an African-American woman would not have been able to marry in 16 states — and their children would have been deprived the benefits and protections of their parents’ marriage. …

Many committed gay and lesbian families are models of nonhierarchical family units and are actually more stable than some so-called “traditional” marriages that dictate inequality and preach dominance of husbands over wives — not a healthy model for sustaining marriages or raising children.

Divorce rates in predominantly “Bible Belt” states are evidence of these failures— 73 percent in Mississippi, for example, 79 percent in Oklahoma. (The national heterosexual divorce rate is 51 percent.) Two of the most significant threats to the institution of traditional marriage are sexism and divorce. …

Lesbian and gay families lack essential state and federal benefits that automatically accompany a marriage license, for example, financial and legal rights that protect a surviving spouse when a partner dies — which include automatic inheritance, assumption of a spouse’s pension, bereavement leave, burial determination, exemption from property taxes, Social Security survivor benefits, and the right to wrongful death benefits.

Additional government-bestowed protections for families include divorce, child custody and visitation rights, joint adoption and foster care, domestic violence restraints, immigration rights for a foreign spouse, insurance discounts, joint bankruptcy, joint parenting, medical decisions, and sick leave to care for a spouse.

The most profound threats to the institution of “traditional” marriage in New Mexico are the domino effects of poverty: violations of basic human needs for shelter, security and well-being. …
—
Mary Ellen S. Capek, a researcher and consultant, is co-author of “Effective Philanthropy: Organizational Success Through Deep Diversity and Gender Equality,” a book written for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation that will be published by MIT Press in 2005. Capek and her partner, Sue Hallgarth, live in Corrales and got married Sept. 16 in Victoria, Canada.

mjh’s weBlog: Read the Conservative argument FOR gay marriage


More Terrorists Than Ever — Thanks, Duhbya!

Wed 02/25/04 at 10:28 am

Terrorism cells multiplying, Senate warned

Al Qaeda has ”infected others with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam’s greatest foe,” he said. ”The steady growth of Osama bin Laden’s anti-U.S. sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of al Qaeda’s destructive expertise ensure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future — with or without al Qaeda in the picture.” — CIA Director George Tenet speaking to Congress

So, more muslims than every hate us and want to destroy us? Does Bush work for bin Laden or vice versa? Who profits from a war without end? Those who rule through fear. mjh


Dump Heather Wilson!

Sat 02/21/04 at 12:24 pm

On the one hand, the media overreacts to emotion from politicians (consider the nonsense over the Dean Scream). On the other hand, I saw Heather on TV and she was strangely strangled with emotion. I go with those who ask if these same complainers are as outraged over near-naked cheerleaders and topless Sports Illustrated models, not to mention the rape of female soldiers by their fellow soldiers. mjh

Heather Wilson Receiving Campaing DonationCry us a river By Michael Henningsen and Sara Hiatt, Alibi

For a politician whose voting record clearly defines the self-serving interests of corporate America (Viacom is one of her campaign contributors for Chrissakes, to the tune of $4,500 since 1997) to get teary eyed and ridiculously dramatic over a risque halftime show–it was just a breast, after all, and 52 percent of us, including Wilson, have them–and not over the fact that she’s repeatedly voted against the interests of New Mexican children and families she’s constantly feigning concern about is insulting to every resident of the state she supposedly represents. Shut up, Heather. And do some good in Washington for a change! And besides, with American soldiers still dying in Iraq, aren’t there bigger issues to cry about?

New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan

The usually passionless Heather Wilson turned up the temperature last night as she graced TV screens across America with a withering attack on Viacom, owner of CBS, and its president, Mel Karmazin, for airing the Janet Jackson strip act at the Super Bowl. The ABQ GOP Congresswoman lit into Karmazin who was appearing before a congressional committee looking into the incident: “You knew what you were doing. You improved your market share and lined your pockets!” Exclaimed Heather, in a near-tearful tirade over Janet’s bared breast. The CBS Evening News, CNN and other media picked up her tongue-lashing.

Her high-pitch seemed a bit out of character for the low-key lawmaker. But politically she picked safe turf. The Jackson act has been panned everywhere and the issue especially appeals to conservative Republicans. Heather’s previous national TV shots, on Bill Maher’s HBO program and a stint on the Fox network’s ‘Hannity and Colmes,’ have fallen flat. This time she was more animated, if a bit demagogic. But you don’t get to the U.S. Senate by hanging back and I’m sure her future competitors eyed her new act and are laying plans for their own coming-out parties.

You might ask what senate seat Wilson and her rivals could have their eyes on. Certainly, Sen. Domenici’s. But that’s not up until 2008. Sen. Jeff Bingaman is up in 06′, but when asked recently by talk show host Mike Santullo if he definitely was seeking re-election, Jeff did not say yes. I am sure it was just an oversight, wasn’t it Jeff? …

Heather Wilson’s outburst against CBS and Viacom for airing a racy half-time show at the Super Bowl has drawn some return fire. Local wags, mostly Dems, ask pointedly if Heather is willing to put her money where her mouth is and not put her campaign commercials on CBS affiliates? The wags also point out that the ABQ GOP congresswoman has over $750,000 in her ever-growing campaign kitty, big chunks of it from the pharmaceutical industry which some of her constituents find as profit-hungry as Viacom. Will she cease taking donations from that industry?

Of course, the answers are no and no. Politicos can blast greedy corporations all they want, but when you look in their own backyard, they are just as money driven, raising untold millions from just about anyone in their quest to get re-elected. Sounds a lot like trying to get those CBS ”ratings” Heather is in a tizzy about, doesn’t it?

And what of the politics of the nationally televised Wilson tongue-lashing? One observer recalled the response Heather received when she was introduced by the Prez at a recent Roswell rally. She basically got no response, while loud cheers were given to her fellow GOP Congressman Steve Pearce. Sure, Pearce represents the area, but, our observer reflects, the silence had to be deafening for Heather. “Her hit on Viacom will resonate most with conservative southeast NM Republicans who she would badly need to win any future GOP U.S. Senate primary against Pearce or another conservative,” said our source who has worked at the highest levels of New Mexico politics. [mjh: Joe’s blog has THE photo, if you’ve been searching the Web for it.]

WilsonWatch.org | Heather Wilson (R-NM-1)

THE COST OF OUR DISTRICT
Congresswoman Heather Wilson has raised a total of $7,189,041 to keep her seat in congress. Her largest contributors include: Lockheed Martin, WorldCom, Republican Leadership PACs.

Miles Nelson For Congress


Cal Thomas Nominates Bush for Dictator-for-life

Fri 02/20/04 at 4:51 pm

Cal Thomas

President Bush should quickly change the subject. What signal would it send to our highly motivated enemies should America change leaders in mid-war? One of the reasons the United States prevailed in World War II was the four terms to which Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Continuity at home helped prosecute and win the war against Germany and Japan. The stakes today are higher. We cannot afford trivial pursuits in presidential politics during wartime.

This isn’t a game. It is about the survival of the United States of America and the values associated with Western traditions. Rejecting an administration that has built a (so far) successful defense against terrorism following 9/11 in favor of one with no such experience could give America’s enemies a unique window of opportunity to hit us again, and harder.

This is the line the Bush reelection team should take. We are at war, and we are likely to remain at war for a very long time. Political games can be played after we win. They should not be played during the battle.

Most agree that the ”War Against Terrorism” will last a long time, perhaps a generation. Thomas says ’stick with Bush during the War’ — is he advocating Bush remain president forever? Or does he think Bush will win the war in 4 more years? mjh


Bush Doesn’t Deserve his Job

Thu 02/19/04 at 7:01 pm

Bush smirksWhite House Struggles to Halt Flap Over Jobs Report By Steve Holland, Reuters

The White House on Thursday sought to contain the fallout over an overly optimistic forecast that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year and some Republicans expressed concern about the damage being done to President Bush.

Bush, who has distanced himself from the forecast as Democrats emphasize sluggish job growth, tried to change the subject by accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes by not making his tax cuts permanent. …

The chairman of Bush’s re-election campaign, Marc Racicot, continued a general Bush administration retreat from the president’s own job forecast saying the 2.6 million figure was only a “stated goal.” …

Since 112,000 jobs were created in January, meeting the goal would require adding an average 335,000 new jobs each month all year — well above the 166,000 per month predicted by a recent survey of forecasters by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter. [mjh: only 1,000 jobs were created in December 2003; nearly 3 million have been lost under Bush’s watch.]

In fact, the White House had implied that 3.8 million jobs would be created this year by projecting about 3 percent growth in the number of jobs in 2004.

Duhbya on ‘Meet The Press’

RUSSERT: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We’ve gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from 5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion, up 23 percent. Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?

BUSH: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead that would enhance recovery. …

RUSSERT: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new jobs. That has not happened.

BUSH: Well, it’s happening. It’s happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs. …

RUSSERT: How, why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

BUSH: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years. …

RUSSERT: That’s a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.

BUSH: Yeah.

RUSSERT: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?

BUSH: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. …

RUSSERT: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?

BUSH: Well, that’s a hypothetical question which I can’t answer to you because I don’t know how strong the economy is going to be. …

RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I’m not going to lose. [mjh: is that just confidence?]

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I have got a vision for what I want to do to for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us, I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too. [mjh: what with American Fascism and all that.]


#
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. 51 queries. 1.275 seconds. Back to Top