Official Rate Bush's speech thread

[Mickalino]

Vote and post thoughts on Bush's speech, if you were able to stay awake thru the whole thing :laugh:

[Dexter's Better]

He nearly said the words I long to hear... "Fair Tax Act"...

[Rdskns2000]

I swear he sounded like a liberal at the beginning, what's with all those liberal programs? I think Pat Buchanon is right that there is a civil war coming to the republican party. I can't imagine conservatives being pleased with all those liberal spending programs Bush wants. He got polite applaush. The rest of the speech did pick up though and he brought the house down. Loved his digs at Kerry, though wonder if could backfire with some voters.


I think the election will come down to Iraq and Jobs and the debates.

[Dexter's Better]

Best quote of the night....

In Texas, we call it "walking".

[The Wicked Wop]

Probably the right speech at the right time. Drew his line in the sand and said this is where I stand......but did it in a more personal way then some of his speechs. Pretty good speech actually, I was expecting about a 6 or 7

[Mickalino]

What'd you guys think of 3rd generation Pierce Bush ?
I definitely see politics in his future.
He's got more charisma than any of the Bush's, and a good head to with it.

[luckydevil]

A very good speech

He brought his A game

[Hitman56]

I just don't believe anything he's saying. I don't know why anyone would.

[afparent]

Started slow but the part when he talked about military families and his eyes teared up....AWESOME!!!!

[Painkiller]

Excellent speech for Dubya. I was impressed. He did a very good job tonight. Say what you will about him, but I believe he is a genuine person, and really tries to do the right thing. There is no mistaking where he stands, whether you always agree with him or not. On a side note, I find it despicable that those two nimrods would try to disrupt the President's speech. No respect at all, it's really sad.

I think Kerry has lost more ground tonight. My :2cents:

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I'm with Hitman. I can't believe in this guy. Puts a bad taste in my mouth.

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by afparent
Started slow but the part when he talked about military families and his eyes teared up....AWESOME!!!!

I agree about the tears welling up. When I looked at the President tonight one word came to mind. GENUINE. Like I said, say what you will about him, but the man is for real, there's no mistaking who he is, or what he stands for.

[Mickalino]

Originally posted by Hitman56
I just don't believe anything he's saying. I don't know why anyone would.


Funny, that's exactly how I feel.......about John Kerry

[Brown 43]

Hitman and Sassy, I believe him!

How can you believe in Kerry? You too Destino!

Kerry is drowning and my not get back up!

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Hitman56
I just don't believe anything he's saying. I don't know why anyone would.

I'm not sure what your rationale is. There are plenty of people who dislike Bush, but he's certainly not the type of President to play both sides of every issue, attempt to deceive, soft peddle, etc.

The only thing I can imagine that you would respond would be to say that he lied in taking us into Iraq, but there's no actual evidence to support anything other than a massive international intelligence failure. Is that your main problem with his honesty?

I can understand people who have huge problems with his stands on various issues, but I don't see where you're coming from. Help me out here.

[BG]

Much better than I thought. Siad a few things I wish he hadn't, didn't touch on some issues I wish he would have.

8

[jbooma]

Kerry better get his act together before this turns into a run away, Bush was great tonight, i loved how he took shots at himself, and said he does have flaws, great job :cheers:

[Hitman56]

OK, here's my beef:

This goes for ALL candidates...it is an election. They probably won't do half of what they say they are going to do. They are trying to get votes. With Bush's speech, I felt like I could run down the list of the groups he was trying to get votes from:

Corporate America...check
Reagan Fans...check
Doctors...check
Latinos(or Hispanics, as he calls them)...check
Conservatives...check
Religious Right....check
Jews....check

It just seemed too transparent to me.

Further, with the Iraq mess, Bush is still trying to convince the American people that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (and don't even get me started on the exploitation of 9/11).

Plus, the personal attacks on Kerry seemed like they were either statistics that were taken out of context or just lies. Bush talked about Kerry saying the heart and soul of America is in Hollywood. I seriously doubt if Kerry ever said something like that.

Anyway, its late and I don't really feel like explaining why I don't believe Bush anymore and I'm sure I'll get attacked up and down this board. But I just didn't think the speech was so good.

[112row2]

Didnt hear it......Dont care. It's football season.....

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

Originally posted by Brown 43
Hitman and Sassy, I believe him!

How can you believe in Kerry? You too Destino!

Kerry is drowning and my not get back up!

I never said I believed in Kerry

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by Hitman56
OK, here's my beef:

This goes for ALL candidates...it is an election. They probably won't do half of what they say they are going to do. They are trying to get votes. With Bush's speech, I felt like I could run down the list of the groups he was trying to get votes from:

Corporate America...check
Reagan Fans...check
Doctors...check
Latinos(or Hispanics, as he calls them)...check
Conservatives...check
Religious Right....check
Jews....check


Why shouldn't the President try to get these peoples votes? What does a Presidential canidate do, if not try to get people's votes? Everybody's Vote, even yours! :)



Originally posted by Hitman56
Further, with the Iraq mess, Bush is still trying to convince the American people that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (and don't even get me started on the exploitation of 9/11).

I never heard him say anything about Saddam having something to do with 9/11. I did hear him say something about Saddam having to do with terrorism, which is a fact.


Originally posted by Hitman56
[B]Plus, the personal attacks on Kerry seemed like they were either statistics that were taken out of context or just lies. Bush talked about Kerry saying the heart and soul of America is in Hollywood. I seriously doubt if Kerry ever said something like that.


What Bush said, is something to the effect of, most American's don't believe that Kerry is as he claims to be the defender of Conservative Values.

If he is the defender of conservative values, then why do so many liberal movie stars support him?

[Hitman56]

Originally posted by G-Train


Why shouldn't the President try to get these peoples votes? What does a Presidential canidate do, if not try to get people's votes? Everybody's Vote, even yours! :)




I never heard him say anything about Saddam having something to do with 9/11. I did hear him say something about Saddam having to do with terrorism, which is a fact.



What Bush said, is something to the effect of, most American's don't believe that Kerry is as he claims to be the defender of Conservative Values.

If he is the defender of conservative values, then why do so many liberal movie stars support him?

Response to part 1) I said that the speech seemed transparent. I was not knocking him for trying to get votes. I just thought the writers would do a better job masking it.

Part 2) Saddam has to do with Terrorism is a fact? Source? Link?

Part 3) Bush exactly said that Kerry "said the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood" I just wanted to know where he got this quote from.
I understand the point Bush was making with it.

:point2sky :dallasuck :point2sky

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Hitman56
Part 2) Saddam has to do with Terrorism is a fact? Source? Link?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

"This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions."

Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Hours after Putin spoke, Bush addressed troops at Fort Lewis in the U.S. state of Washington, but he didn't react to the Russian leader's remarks.

He repeated his position that Saddam's regime was a threat to the world and that dangers it posed were the grounds for the invasion last year.

"This is a regime which gave cash rewards to families of suicide bombers. This is a regime that sheltered terrorist groups," Bush said.

He also cited Musab Abu al-Zarqawi, the wanted insurgent in Iraq suspected of many terrorist bombings in Iraq, as an "al Qaeda associate."

Asked about Putin's remarks, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We don't typically comment on intelligence matters. We do have an excellent record of cooperation in the war on terror with the Russian government. And a big part of the cooperation is information and intelligence sharing."

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

take it for what it's worth...

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by Hitman56


Part 2) Saddam has to do with Terrorism is a fact? Source? Link?




A simple internet search will show that terrorists, not nessesarily Al Qaeda, were operating in Iraq prior to the the war. U.S. soldiers found a training facility in Iraq. Here's one link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

If we were to hold Saddam to the same standards that Bush Haters hold Bush to, if it happens under his watch, he is responsible.

Saddam Hussein himself was a terrorist. Terrorists would use chemical weapons against their own people. What was the the Mustard Gas attacks against the Kurds in 88 if not terrorism?


Originally posted by Hitman56

Part 3) Bush exactly said that Kerry "said the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood" I just wanted to know where he got this quote from.
I understand the point Bush was making with it.



Fine, if that's exactly what he said, that's exactly what he said. I don't think in a nationally televised speech he would say Kerry said something he didn't, knowing that the speech will be scrutinized thoroughly. I'm sure that Kery did make that comment.

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Great article Johnny.

News flash to liberals. EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM REGIME has had something to do with terrorism, including allies.

According to liberals Al Qaeda was everywhere BUT Iraq. Simply not true.

Now if you have lived and traveled through the middle east (like this guy) you would know this

[Joe Sick]

All of the parts except the war on terror were recycled from his speech in 2000.

It just shows how little he has accomplished. How can the incumbent speak so little about what he's done?

If he had any balls, he would have at least said the words "Osama bin Laden."

I do agree that it's low class to try to interrupt the man's speech. I would love to know how those two people got into the arena. Doesn't say much for keeping us safer if they can't even lock down one building.

Don't sleep on Kerry. He came out swinging tonight and isn't going to take any of this crap anymore. The lull between conventions hurt Kerry in that he didn't have as much money to spend. However, it's head up now. Hopefully, Kerry will bring in Lockhart and Begala and start picking that Cowboy apart.

[Rdskns2000]

Originally posted by Hitman56
OK, here's my beef:

This goes for ALL candidates...it is an election. They probably won't do half of what they say they are going to do. They are trying to get votes. With Bush's speech, I felt like I could run down the list of the groups he was trying to get votes from:

Bush talked about Kerry saying the heart and soul of America is in Hollywood. I seriously doubt if Kerry ever said something like that.



Kerry actually did say that about Hollywood. Of course Bush if saying things to get votes and Kerry isn't? They are both saying things to get votes. WIth Bush though you get some of the things he is saying- he means it and intends to do it. With Kerry though- you don't get that feeling. Kerry's nuancing, trying to take both sides of an issue; leaves one with the impression that Kerry has no core believes. He is saying whatever he can to get elected but once he's in- he will probably do the opposite of what he said to get elected- except for raising taxes. I fully expect Kerry to raise everyones taxes.


Did Bush sway me to vote for him again. No! As matter of fact, I can see him having real problems with conservatives if he gets reelected. Kerry though is an empty suit. Kerry doesn't show conviction. He only picked Edwards because the polls and the press wanted Edwards. If he went with his true convictions; Gephardt would be his veep pick. I don't see Kerry being a good leader. If he actually wins and gets a democratic congress- they will be running roughshot over him. The democratic congress will dictate to Kerry what will happen. If Kerry wins and gets a republican congress; it will be funny to see how he deals with them. Clinton ran rings around the republican congress.


Kerry doesn't even have true support from democrats. The democrats agree more with Howard Dean and the only reason Kerry is the nominee is that they thought Kerry could beat Bush. Democrats aren't voting for Kerry, they are voting against Bush.

[Rdskns2000]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward
All of the parts except the war on terror were recycled from his speech in 2000.

It just shows how little he has accomplished. How can the incumbent speak so little about what he's done?
.


One thing about that- how come Kerry brushed aside his 20 years as a senator. He didn't mention much about his senate career in his speech.



The fall election should be a nice and nasty sluggfest. Each side has to pound and each other's weakness and see what happens in 2 months.


The economy and Iraq will decide this election. How each candidate performs in the debates will tip the remaining undecideds in one direction or another. One thing if Kerry wants to win; he really has to say what he's going to do. You really don't know much about what he would do when he is president.
If he wants the people to make the switch; then he's going to have to give people specific reasons why. Not just because he's not Bush. Bush did this, well I won't do that. If I was interested in voting for him; I really don't care that he won't do what Bush will. I would want to know exactly what he would do.


Just to point out, I'm voting for neither candidate.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward
All of the parts except the war on terror were recycled from his speech in 2000.

It just shows how little he has accomplished. How can the incumbent speak so little about what he's done?


lets see

9-11
recession
war
terrorism

yep he has not done much :doh:

kind of hard to do a lot of things when you are trying to get out of a recession and recovering from 911 as well as being at war

[Hitman56]

Originally posted by Johnny 'Luscious' Punani


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)


However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.


Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.


Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.



Thank you for finding an article to help prove my point. :cool:

[Baculus]

As someone said, it reminded me of his 2000 campaign speeches, so he really doesn't have much material, other than the "War on Terror." And how can he talk about Kerry's programs, when Bush was dishonest about the size of his proposed tax cut along with other of his Federal programs. It's ironic that he talked about "No Child Left Behind," when it's funding fell short by $32 billion in 2003. He's still talking about this issue, but not actually doing anything about it, four years later.

I don't see what others have seen so far in the RNC. I though Arnold's speech was pretty mediocre, and Bush's wasn't much better.

I just didn't feel Bush's speech was genuine. Just my .02.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by G-Train



A simple internet search will show that terrorists, not nessesarily Al Qaeda, were operating in Iraq prior to the the war. U.S. soldiers found a training facility in Iraq. Here's one link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

If we were to hold Saddam to the same standards that Bush Haters hold Bush to, if it happens under his watch, he is responsible.

Saddam Hussein himself was a terrorist. Terrorists would use chemical weapons against their own people. What was the the Mustard Gas attacks against the Kurds in 88 if not terrorism?



Fine, if that's exactly what he said, that's exactly what he said. I don't think in a nationally televised speech he would say Kerry said something he didn't, knowing that the speech will be scrutinized thoroughly. I'm sure that Kery did make that comment.

the MKO? these are the same people that the military did NOT want to disarm after the Iraq was taken. The MKO are Islamic Marxists who just don't like the Iranian government. I don't think America would go to a war just to destroy the MKO and then not even disarm them.

[Art]

Bush delivered the speech as well as Bush can deliver a speech. The content, though, fell short of rousing or at all memorable. I gave him a 7 for these reasons. The writing was tight and well done, but, you just don't think back on his speech and really remember much specifically.

What works for Bush generally and what worked for him last night though was his unquestionable character as a man. Whether you like him or not, it's very difficult to pretend you don't believe he firmly believes what he says to you. Bush's personal characteristics shine through in a speech like last night's in comparison to Kerry. It's why Bush leads in all of these areas of personal stuff in the polls.

The most touching aspect of Bush's speech was how he can convey how personally he's touched by the events of 9/11 and the aftermath in a way you listen to and know he actually cares about, and this is whether you believe in the war in Iraq or not.

A couple of comments in this thread seem oddly placed.

Obviously we all know Iraq under Saddam had a tremendous amount to do with terrorism in general and some to do with Al Queda in particular. Post-Saddam Iraq has been announced as the central focus of Al Queda and terrorists generally, which is something we kind of stumbled in, but, is obviously there given how important the outcome in Iraq is to actual terrorists -- as THEY themselves have announced.

Liberals seem to think it's inspiring to talk about No Child Left Behind and then say it wasn't funded. Of course it was funded. Education spending has shot up under Bush at a very unconservative level. Now, it's true that the TOP end of possible budgetary allowance hasn't been given. But, it's NEVER BEEN GIVEN. Not under Clinton, not under Bush, and NEVER in history.

Further, schools have BILLIONS they are sitting on that the government had to WARN them they'd take back if they didn't spend earlier this year. Billions unspent over the last few years. Do you guys not recall this?

I don't happen to like Bush that much because I'm a true small-government social conservative and Bush isn't. To his credit, though, he doesn't pretend to be. He announces his belief that government has a place in people's lives and that he has many concepts which are quite liberal in nature.

You've seen him enact several of those during the last four years with the NCLB Act, the drug benefit, and several portions of the tax reform he got through.

I don't defend these actions by Bush as I don't find they resonate with conservatives. But, Bush is a genuine person when it comes to that. He's been that person when he ran last time and he remains that person. Bush actually said it well when he said people may not always agree with him, but, they know where he stands.

That line spoke directly to me.

I'm a person who has withdrawn my support of Bush and the party through political donations and possibly my vote due to spending policies I can't tolerate as a conservative. But, a lot of my views have been that I expect a Republican to be a conservative on these issues and Bush moved me, particularly, with this line of reasoning.

My expectations shouldn't be that Bush is me and that's kind of where I've been. Mine should be Bush is Bush, and do I know who he is? Obviously I do. Can I, as a conservative, tolerate the things I can't stand about his policies? Yes and no. Yes, if I continue to weigh this election by the priorities I have for politicians in that they limit spending and slow the growth or cut government.

No, if I start to weigh this election by the importance of the issues of our time, which, now, is reshaping the Middle East and continuing to take the fight to the fanatics. I can't say Bush changed my mind about casting a vote for him. But, he did put things into perspective well for me given my point of view on him and likely moved me closer to him than I was before the speech.

Of course, if he continues to handcuff the military when he knows where the bad guys are because he refuses to level a Mosque, well, then I may just stay angry with him :).

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Hitman56
[ Bush talked about Kerry saying the heart and soul of America is in Hollywood. I seriously doubt if Kerry ever said something like that.

/B]

Actually Kerry said that Whoopi and other actors represented the heart and soul of america.

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Unfourtantley JW, this is where I think Bush has soured on me during his first 4 years. He has done TOO MUCH.

Lets see what I hate

McCain-Feingold
Farm Subsidies
Steel Tarrifs
No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drug Benifit

And thats just off the top of my head. I was hoping that he would call to eliminate something, anything, from this bloated gov't. Instead I was dissapointed in hearing there will be even MORE domestic projects.

Touching SS clearly was not happening in his first term because of the market not doing so hot in the beginning. Social Security is a key key issue for me and anyone who DOES NOT propose a personal account system is not going to get my vote. Its that simple on all levels.

I liked the international aspect of his speech. It resonated well with me. However when I look back on his first 4 years he has accomplished way too much for my liking. Rather than having eliminated several programs we have MORE entitlements today.

[Thiebear]

He gave a Bush speech: About a 6... He believes what he says, he says what he does and does what he says, but doesnt always say it so well..

The best thing is the demo's saying he's so stupid so often:
If he gets through a speech its a 5....

It will be the same for the debates... He'll squeek by but seem to win because Kerry is the Intelligent Aristocrat and Bush is the Country Bumpkin... All Bush has to do is survive...

[Art]

Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan
Unfourtantley JW, this is where I think Bush has soured on me during his first 4 years. He has done TOO MUCH.

Lets see what I hate

McCain-Feingold
Farm Subsidies
Steel Tarrifs
No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drug Benifit

And thats just off the top of my head. I was hoping that he would call to eliminate something, anything, from this bloated gov't. Instead I was dissapointed in hearing there will be even MORE domestic projects.

Touching SS clearly was not happening in his first term because of the market not doing so hot in the beginning. Social Security is a key key issue for me and anyone who DOES NOT propose a personal account system is not going to get my vote. Its that simple on all levels.

I liked the international aspect of his speech. It resonated well with me. However when I look back on his first 4 years he has accomplished way too much for my liking. Rather than having eliminated several programs we have MORE entitlements today.

SHF,

The future of social security is a key for me as well, though it is not the basis of my vote. The key for me here combines the personal account aspect as you mentioned, with an aspect of choice in the equation.

For example, my wife and I put $25K a year away into our 401K accounts. We have other retirement related accounts as well. Obviously, I'm not likely to need to draw upon social security. So, I'd like out of the scam completely.

The problem, now, is not only that social security is setup as a pyramid scheme such that current workers pay for retired workers today, but, ALL social security money goes into the general fund, which the government then spends, instead of saving, which is why social security money earns almost no interest.

Personal accounts are the easiest immediate fix.

That doesn't mean personal accounts that let you invest in ANYTHING you want. It simply means the money goes into an account that's yours and the government can't spend it. The money NEVER hits the general fund. It goes into YOUR name for YOU to draw on.

This will automatically earn interest. Put this money in AAA government bonds, and it earns a nice chunk of interest WHILE giving the government money to use for programs. Also, this will immediately allow corporations to stop being extorted to match your individual contribution to social security, letting them put money back into the business.

The choice aspect will follow personal accounts. If I'm putting in so much money a year -- let the public decide what that amount should be -- then I can opt out of the additional personal account sponsored by the government. If, however, I'm not putting away that money on my own, the government continues to secure my retirement for me.

It's almost a perfect deal :).

[ghetto-smoove]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward


If he had any balls, he would have at least said the words "Osama bin Laden."





I was thinking the same thing while I was watching the speech. Going in I wanted to see if he would mention Osama, and not to my suprise he didnt. Why would he go on and on about Sadam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 according to intelligence, and not even mention the man accused of the terrorist attack.

His speech was ok if you like the rhetoric politians speak on a day to day basis...he was redundant and said nothing new really. Im still waiting on one of the candidates to talk about issues that deal with African Americans and other minorities

[RicRod]

blah, blah, blah...we heard all this before.

[ghetto-smoove]

another thing I forgot to mention that struck me when I heard it....How can Bush stand up at the podium with a straight face and say Kerry will be a big spender when Bush himself has spent the largest of any president in 60 years ?

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove
another thing I forgot to mention that struck me when I heard it....How can Bush stand up at the podium with a straight face and say Kerry will be a big spender when Bush himself has spent the largest of any president in 60 years ?


They are Politicians.. as long as you don't mix politicians and Lawyers we will be o.k. :rolleyes:

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove




I was thinking the same thing while I was watching the speech. Going in I wanted to see if he would mention Osama, and not to my suprise he didnt. Why would he go on and on about Sadam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 according to intelligence, and not even mention the man accused of the terrorist attack.

His speech was ok if you like the rhetoric politians speak on a day to day basis...he was redundant and said nothing new really. Im still waiting on one of the candidates to talk about issues that deal with African Americans and other minorities

I am suprised more african americans dont want to reform social security in the way bush outlined last night. The social security program is most onfair to african americans. Because of the life expectancy of african american men (currently 67 or 68) they are only eligible to collect it in full for a year or two. So all of their payments over their lifetime goes to essentially goes to white women (life expectancy of 86).

Bush wants to reform social security so you can pass part of the benefit on to your children.

He talked about ownership, of your future, your healthcare, your savings, retirement etc. This should appeal to african americans, it is the path to independence.

When you talk about things important to african americans, what are you talking about? Education? Health Care? Defense? Those are all issues important to all americans.

[RaleighSkinsMann]

Im not a bUsh fan, but let me say that i thought his speech was amazing. It seemed to me that he was more comfortable than i've eve seen him on TV. I agrred with alot of things he said and he could actually sway my vote, but I'd have to be sure that he's gonna stick to what he said. BUt let me say it was a very promising speech.

[Art]

Originally posted by RaleighSkinsMann
Im not a bUsh fan, but let me say that i thought his speech was amazing. It seemed to me that he was more comfortable than i've eve seen him on TV. I agrred with alot of things he said and he could actually sway my vote, but I'd have to be sure that he's gonna stick to what he said. BUt let me say it was a very promising speech.

Unfortunately -- from the perspective of a fiscal conservative -- you can rely upon Bush to stick to what he said. He's already proven he'll stick to what he says he'll do as he's set out to keep most of his initial campaign promises at the expense of fiscal responsibility.

Liberals, though, do adore the part of Bush that continues to increase the size of government, so, he should have any number of Democrats in his corner.

[Hersh]

I think Bush gave a pretty good speech (I gave it a 7), but this campaign is far from over. As a Democrat, I didn't like the misleading statements about Kerry such as he is going to raise taxes. Yes, Kerry would repeal the taxes against the highest 2% income earners, but the way Bush said it, it's as if Kerry would raise everybodies taxes. I give him credit, it was very clever. As far as the hollywood line goes, Kerry was at an event where a few hollywood types were performing. Kerry was referencing the crowd, not the performers, when he made that comment about the heart and soul of America, but in typical political fashion that both parties are guilty, the line was taken way out of context. I personally would've like him to say something about the environment, but that was wishful thinking.

One of the big criticism from Republicans about Kerry's speech is how is he going to pay for his platform. I think the same question should be asked about Bush's platform. Not to mention the plan to reduce the deficts by half and pay for the huge prescription/medicare overhaul that was in the 400 billion range if my memory serves me.

There is no doubt Bush will get a little bounce and will be ahead in the polls, but there are so many factors that will influence this election. The debates, the economy and the high oil/gas prices that people feel the effects of. The war in Iraq and the death toll as it unfortunately approaches 1000. My guess is that in 30 days this will be a dead heat again and it probably will until the end. Another big factor is if Nadar stays in the race or if he endores Kerry.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Hersh
Another big factor is if Nadar stays in the race or if he endores Kerry.

I would be SHOCKED if Nader drops out and endorses Kerry. Say what you want about Nader and his views, but he's not one to back down from a fight, and not one to back away from what he believes in. He's a very principled man. And he's pretty pissed at all of the Kerry and DNC campaignes who have been trying to torpedo him thus far. I think they've made it way too antagonistic for him to step aside.

[Kilmer17]

Repealing taxe cuts is the same thing as raising taxes.

Bush gave a perfect speech. I dont think it was "great". But it was exactly right. It gave a vision with specifics and an account of what he has accomplished in the past 4 years.

Kerry will have to start offering an alternative plan soon or he'll be toast by October. He had a chance last night, but instead continued to fight about whether his tour in Vietnam makes him the better candidate. People who are undecided want to see a plan. Kerry hasnt offered any.

Bush could have done better, but I dont know if a better speech would have the same positive result that this one will.

[Art]

Hersh,

You understand that repealing tax cuts is raising taxes don't you? The fact that Kerry is only openly stating the tax increase on the Top 2 percent of wage earners means he's attempting to use class warfare to his advantage. You can rely on the fact though that he'd have to raise everyone's taxes to afford the plans he's offered up.

The Hollywood line was not all that moving to me, but I don't know how you feel it was used out of context. Kerry told the entertainment folks in his corner that they are the heart and soul of America. He did say it. Bush simply said that's not really all that conservative.

As far as how things might get paid for, Bush has explained it, whether you tend to believe him or not. Trickle down economics which worked so well under Reagan is what Bush believes will work here. Give money to the people. The people will spend it. That boosts the economy and government revenue. Just as it did under Reagan.

The boost in revenue will pay for new programs and cut the deficit if new spending and increases is also limited. Now, you may not believe in the theory, but it IS explained. Kerry has not explained his position other than to say he wants to TAKE money from the people most likely to spend it.

And, remember, Kerry doesn't HAVE to say he's going to raise EVERYONE'S taxes. Many of the key tax cuts Bush enacted expire at the end of this year. So, Kerry can simply walk into office, not do a thing, and everyone will pay higher taxes. He knows this. This is how he can pay for the stuff he says he'll pay for. He just won't tell you that.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Repealing taxes is the same thing as raising taxes.

I know you meant to say "repealing tax cuts", but still, as written, its pretty funny. :silly:

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Art you outlined my vision of Social Secuirty perfectly. Especially the part about having a choice of whether or not to be in the failed program.

Those were beauitful words

[Kilmer17]

LOL. oops.

[flashback]

Something kind of weird is happening in this election. In a series of speeches and events starting right after the primaries, Kerry has outlined in detail dozens of programs, initiatives, agenda items for a Kerry administration. But somehow, nobody knows about them still.

I think we've got a little bit of bias in the news shows. If its not exciting enough, they're not covering it. If you're really curious about what Kerry wants to do with Social Security or health care or anything else, you probably have to go to www.johnkerry.com.

On an unrelated note, voting is not class warfare.

[Hersh]

First, when I said he was repealing taxes...not raising on everyone, I assumed you understood that I was acknowledging that he is raising taxes. Kerry has never said he would raise taxes on everyone and to make your opinion that he would raise taxes on everyone sound as if it's a fact, is simply misleading. He never said it and to imply that he said it is wrong. Does Kerry have explaining to do? Absolutely.

Bush did not give specifics. He gave broad themes and ideas about what he would like to do. The specifics will come when he explains what he would do to the programs built for yesterday.
To say that you want to reform the tax code, isn't specific. I do wonder if he wants to reform the tax code, besides that it is complicated, as a way around trying to get his tax cuts made permanent by congress.


I have a couple of questions that are not attacks in anyway.
1. Do you believe that trickle down economics would be able to pay for Bush's entire agenda?
2. which tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year?
3. (this would be a good poll question here) A little off subject, I'm curious as to rather you Republicans would really nominate Guiliani in 2008 even with his social beliefs?

[Zen-like Todd]

By the way, Art had the right answer. I gave it a seven, although I was thinking more like 6.667. For Bush, it was a very well executed speech. Suprisingly good job, in my opinion. However, he sets a low bar for oratory. So a great Bush speech isn't exactly a great speech historically speaking.

A seven is great for Bush, specifically because Kerry's campaign staff has done a horrific job thus far in terms of strategy. Kerry's DNC speech was weak, and completely missed the chance to set an agenda and put Bush on the defensive. Astoundingly, Kerry is STILL slinging back responses about his military service, and we're already in SEPTEMBER!

Purely from a campaign perspective, the Republicans have run rings around the Democrats, who have allowed themselves to be outflanked and penned into a corner. It's amazing, really. Its not so much incredible execution by the Republicans (although its been solid, better than average I would say), as an incompetent performance by Kerry's managers. That's why you've been hearing those stories about the rumored shakeup in Kerry's campaign staff.

[Art]

Originally posted by flashback
Something kind of weird is happening in this election. In a series of speeches and events starting right after the primaries, Kerry has outlined in detail dozens of programs, initiatives, agenda items for a Kerry administration. But somehow, nobody knows about them still.

I think we've got a little bit of bias in the news shows. If its not exciting enough, they're not covering it. If you're really curious about what Kerry wants to do with Social Security or health care or anything else, you probably have to go to www.johnkerry.com.

On an unrelated note, voting is not class warfare.

Voting is not class warfare, no. But, picking on 2 percent of the people so others will vote for you, is class warfare.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Hersh

To say that you want to reform the tax code, isn't specific. I do wonder if he wants to reform the tax code, besides that it is complicated, as a way around trying to get his tax cuts made permanent by congress.


I have a couple of questions that are not attacks in anyway.
1. Do you believe that trickle down economics would be able to pay for Bush's entire agenda?
2. which tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year?
3. (this would be a good poll question here) A little off subject, I'm curious as to rather you Republicans would really nominate Guiliani in 2008 even with his social beliefs?

On the tax code, there are some good hints in the president's economic report from the year before last. Right now, without going back and double checking, I think tax preparation and management costs us over 150 billion dollars a year due to its complicated nature. Simply figuring out a more efficient way (in terms of preparation time and complexity) to handle taxes is a somewhat "free" bonus for the economy, although there are always problems in any drastic changes to the tax code. Now, on to a couple of the numbered questions.

1) HUGE question, very complicated, somewhat vague. Not a BAD question, but not something that could be remotely answered in this thread.

3) Well, I'm not a Republican, but if Rudy was running in 2008, I'd register as a Republican just to help him get through the primaries (always tough ground for moderate candidates of either party).

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by flashback
Something kind of weird is happening in this election. In a series of speeches and events starting right after the primaries, Kerry has outlined in detail dozens of programs, initiatives, agenda items for a Kerry administration. But somehow, nobody knows about them still.

I think we've got a little bit of bias in the news shows. If its not exciting enough, they're not covering it. If you're really curious about what Kerry wants to do with Social Security or health care or anything else, you probably have to go to www.johnkerry.com.

On an unrelated note, voting is not class warfare.

Completely Kerry's fault, and that of his managers. Like I just said, they are running an awful campaign, obsessing over the Swift boat issue, and allowing themselves to be outflanked. Its not media bias, its poor execution by his PR people and speechwriters.

[Art]

Originally posted by Hersh
I have a couple of questions that are not attacks in anyway.
1. Do you believe that trickle down economics would be able to pay for Bush's entire agenda?
2. which tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year?
3. (this would be a good poll question here) A little off subject, I'm curious as to rather you Republicans would really nominate Guiliani in 2008 even with his social beliefs?

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, I believe trickle down economics would pay for Bush's agenda and pay down the debt substantially. This assumes we keep other spending in check, which is the assumption that is never actually witnessed. As history has shown, when Americans have more of their money to spend, the government generates greater revenue.

2. Honestly, it's been some time since I've looked at the specifics of what expires when. However, I believe what expires or is scaled back in January ranges from the child credit decreasing, to the marriage penalty being brought back as the benefit falls from a full 200 percent to something around 175 (a 25 percent penalty for being married), to the lowering of the 10 percent bracket, meaning fewer people will qualify and there are some AMT provisions that expire. I'm probably missing something, but, the sum here is a hunk of the tax cut expires now and more continues to expire in years to come.

3. I think our 2008 nominee will be George Allen. I doubt Guiliani will be the man. His time is now, but now he can't fit in. By 2008 he'll be too obscure. One Democratic polling group watching the convention showed that a startling number of people had no idea who Guiliani was. Don't know the specifics there, but, they were surprised by the lack of name recognition for a person they assumed had a greater national impact.

[SnyderShrugged]

I understand that I and many others lean towards one side of this political battle or the other, and that most of us are very firm in our convictions and in our decisions as to who we are going to vote for.

What I can't understand is blatent misstatements of what President Bush specifically said last night. Personally, I gave a 9.

I think he nailed it overall, but missed two key points:
1. Exit strategy in Iraq
2. Deficit

Other than that we saw much more out of this speach when compared to Kerry's at the DNC.

A few have posted that they saw "nothing new" or "no specific plans"

Obviously, those individuals opted for the CNN or NYT versions and did not watch nor listen to the speech last night.

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/



The entire agenda is outlined at his site. I don't agree with everything he wants to do, in fact I think much is too liberal.
Either way, the key difference now is that we KNOW dubya and we still have very little that we know about Kerry beyond his voting record that tells us very little about the real man that is John Kerry.

Bush summed it up perfectly last night in stateing that he doesnt expect everyone to agree with him, but at least we know who he is, what he believes and that he will do all in his power to achieve what he says he will do.

There is noone that can say anything different and feel that they are being honest.

[OURYEAR#56]

Originally posted by Rdskns2000



I think the election will come down to Iraq and Jobs and the debates.
Then Bush will loose the election. It's been clear to alot of people that the only way Bush win this election is if he keeps the American public fixed on the war on terrorism.

[jchild]

I would rate the speech around an 8-9. Bush seemed much more comfortable last night and he flowed a little better than usual. He knows he is limited and even poked fun at himself later in the speech. Personally I find his delivery refreshing. He seems real to me as opposed to many other politicians. I also don't buy that the man isn't intellegent, there is plenty of brain power there.

As for content of the speech he laid out his new programs and like others have said here it looks like more spending from our "Conservative President". At least I know where he stands now even if I disagree with most of his programs.

I also stayed up and watched Kerry's rebuttal at midnight and thought he did an average job at best. He really should have hit harder after the shots that Cheaney, Bush, and Miller laid on him. I just wonder does he have the backbone to really take the fight to the Republicans.

This election could very well be won during the debates. Surprisingly I think Bush will come across more genuine and really seperate himself at that point. Kerry's personality just doesn't grab you much like Al Gore 4 years ago. Bush wins by default again (how many 2 term presidents have won this way?).

[Phat Hog]

It was too long, but at least I have some idea as to where he stands on issues – other than Vietnam! - 7.5

[J33Edwards]

well I don't like the man or his politics but I rated his speech a nine as I thought it was very good. Definitely the best speech I have seen him give, although I admit I usually change the channel when he comes on ;)

[ghetto-smoove]

Can someone who supports the Republican party please give a reason why Dubbya wouldnt mention the man "supposedly" behind 9/11 ???

[J33Edwards]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove
Can someone who supports the Republican party please give a reason why Dubbya wouldnt mention the man "supposedly" behind 9/11 ???

because hes baiting the dems to make a big issue of it and then wa-la in mid october "SURPRISE WE FOUND OSAMA"

[ghetto-smoove]

Originally posted by J33Edwards


because hes baiting the dems to make a big issue of it and then wa-la in mid october "SURPRISE WE FOUND OSAMA"


Well, if that was the case..then Bush and company already know where he is...do you actually want a president that would keep this from the american people for his own political gain ?

[atlantaskin]

I thought that Bush did a good job delivering the speech and it was orchestrated very well (i.e. the entrance, the platform he spoke from, etc.). I am not impressed with his speaking skills--his timing and inflection always seem awkward to me. He certainly doesn't deliver a speech like Bill Clinton or John Edwards (I don't think Kerry does either, to be fair).

But my critique of his speech is that he didn't he talk about what he has accomplished the last four years. Re-election is a job review for a president, but Bush didn't talk about anything that he accomplished in the last four years domestically (and he really didn't talk about any accomplishments in foreign policy either, except capturing Sadam). He didn't address the problems that this nation is facing at home or abroad.

The easy answer here is that he really doesn't have anything to say. But I think that when the incumbent spends his entire speech talking about what he hopes to do in the next four years--instead of reminding the country of all the great things he has accomplished thus far--you have a problem.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by atlantaskin

But my critique of his speech is that he didn't he talk about what he has accomplished the last four years. Re-election is a job review for a president, but Bush didn't talk about anything that he accomplished in the last four years domestically (and he really didn't talk about any accomplishments in foreign policy either, except capturing Sadam). He didn't address the problems that this nation is facing at home or abroad.

I can't really agree with you there. Granted, he didnt spend a lot of time on the last four years, but he did mention things. He mentioned the tax breaks. He mentioned the medicaid bit. He mentioned No Child Left Behind. He didn't completely ignore his first term.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove
Can someone who supports the Republican party please give a reason why Dubbya wouldnt mention the man "supposedly" behind 9/11 ???



Does anyone have a short bus smiley?

[atlantaskin]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd


I can't really agree with you there. Granted, he didnt spend a lot of time on the last four years, but he did mention things. He mentioned the tax breaks. He mentioned the medicaid bit. He mentioned No Child Left Behind. He didn't completely ignore his first term.

I agree that he flagged a few things. But that's not really an impressive list of accomplishments: the tax cuts have clearly been criticized on may levels, many think that the medicaid plan actually hurts seniors, and most teachers seem to hate No Child Left Behind.

I know that every piece of legislation is going to be questioned by some, but the three things that he spent all of ninety seconds discussing are not going to be remembered as successful legislation.

[MonkeySkin]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove
Can someone who supports the Republican party please give a reason why Dubbya wouldnt mention the man "supposedly" behind 9/11 ???

We are NEVER going to get Bin Laden, and we're not even trying to get him...

Next time you'll hear about him is when he's trying to take over Pakistan.

[ghetto-smoove]

Originally posted by MonkeySkin


We are NEVER going to get Bin Laden, and we're not even trying to get him...

Next time you'll hear about him is when he's trying to take over Pakistan.

do you really believe that ?

[ross3909]

He did a great job (9.0) and I was really moved by the end of the speech. However, I have to admit I am already pretty comfortable with voting for Bush. I, like others, wonder about the programs and the spending. But considering the choices, I would vote for Gomer Pile before I supported Kerry.

[MonkeySkin]

Originally posted by ghetto-smoove


do you really believe that ?

Definitely, it's true. Wait and see.

[New]

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[twa]

I would give him a 9. As to why not mention Bin laden, Bush's focus and I feel our own should be on uprooting the networks of terrorist.Al Quieda is just one of many that we face IMO the Iraq war will go a long way towards allowing the US to apply pressure on Syria and others in the region.I strongly believe that the rebuilding of Iraq will help to transform the region by creating a example to counteract the lies the Muslims are fed daily thru their media. Of course it could all go wrong,But the risk of doing nothing is greater.:2cents:

[Funkyalligator]

Just because someone says they don't believe Bush doesn't mean they believe in Kerry any more.....a lot of people out there are sick of lying politicians that say one thing and do another.....there was a time when the Republican party stood for states rights and fiscal management but not these days.......

[SkinsLegacy44]

crocodile tears....he doesnt give two shts about any middle-lower class family.

i hope he loses the people's vote again!