Democrat Hypocrisy, Lies and Distortions - A 2004 Campaign Analysis

Already, Kerry is whining about negtive tactics of republicans, when his party has been engaing in those very same tactics since Bush was elected. It appears they like to dish it out, but can't take it.

Charles Krauthammer does an excellent job pointing out their hypocrisy in this article:

And now, after six weeks of carpet-bombing Bush, the Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- that the Republicans might answer back with "negativity."

And now, Kerry even tries to use his military service to defend his voting record, equating because he served, no one should have the right to question his voting record as not being strong on defense ? Does anyone not see the illogic in such a preposterous position ? He tries to divert and distort away from his voting record which is very relevant, and has nothing to do with his service.

-- "When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense s, folks in Georgia are going to look beyond what he says and look at his voting record," Sen. Saxby Chambliss said in a conference call arranged by the Bush campaign.

-- Kerry released copies of a letter he was sending to President Bush. It said, in part: "Over the last week you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation.

And because he served, should his service be an unmentionable ? He seems to want to run on that service, but is unwilling to relase his records in the same manner that he and his supporters demanded of Bush. This tactic is beginning to unravel on him, as his service record is beginning to be questioned in the foreign press, and in a new book to be released. It will not be long before our national media is forced to report on it, abandoning their bias.

-- Conservative critics believe he has been given a free ride for too long on his war record, however, and are planning a fightback.

Support for their case is expected to come from a book to be published next month by reporters from The Boston Globe in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. The book, JF Kerry, the Complete Biography, will question the extent of his injuries in Vietnam and whether he was entitled to an early release from the war.

-- In response to an inquiry from The Sunday Times, Kerry's campaign staff gave the newspaper a copy of naval regulations stating that "all naval personnel" who are "wounded three times, regardless of the nature of the wound or the treatment required for each wound" may be reassigned.

-- A spokesman for the US Navy said, however, that such redeployment was not automatic: "It would depend a lot on the nature of the injuries."

-- the well-connected Kerry - photographed with president John F.Kennedy as a young man - simply received favourable treatment. "How many other people were able to get out of Vietnam early and be reassigned to a cushy post?" he said.

And the fraudulent 'jobs' issue is beginning to be exposed, showing the fraud the democrats are perpetrating in their comparisons with Hoover, whose job losses were created by enacting the very things the democrats are proposing. One also notices that they only cite the one survey that gets information from survey of 'major businesses' as opposed to the 'household survey', which presents a much better picture - as it includes the self-employed and new businesses.

Thomas Bray does an excellent job of exposing the deceit being perpetrated on the public by the democrats in their campiagn of distortions, half-truths and lies.

Barely a day goes by without someone in the Democratic Party or the media comparing the Bush record on jobs with that of Herbert Hoover.

“This all started when George Bush became president,” said Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe in Oregon last week. “George Bush has been a disaster. George Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover who lost jobs during his presidency.” A story later in the week by White House AP correspondent Terence Hunt repeated the Hoover comparison.

Put aside that this didn’t all start when Bush became president. Most economists agree that the economy already was slowing by the time he became president. The ensuing, rather mild, recession was prolonged by the shock of September 11.

The real point is that the effort to link Bush with Hoover is a classic case of what a psychiatrist might call transference. During his four years in office, Hoover followed the very policies being advocated most ardently these days by the Democrats — tax increases, trade barriers and higher spending on social programs. If anybody is following in the tradition of Hoover, it’s Kerry and Edwards, who are advocating the same castor oil for the economy.

Also note that the critics carefully limit their Hoover comparison to the number of jobs lost. True, under Bush, jobs have declined 2.2 million, about the same as under the four years of the Hoover administration from 1929 to 1933. But in 1929, when the population was 121 million, a job loss of two million was a national catastrophe. It sent unemployment rocketing from 3.2 percent in 1929 to 23.6 percent in 1932. In 2004, when the population is more than 280 million, a loss of two million jobs means a national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, sorrowful for the individuals involved but hardly a national calamity.

With the economy finally on the mend, the net job loss by the end of Bush’s four years in office next January is likely to be far less — and might even wind up a net gain. The president’s economic advisers were extremely unwise to predict as much in a recent White House report — all forecasts, particularly about the future, being politically dangerous — but it may be true. Household surveys that include the self-employed are showing far stronger job gains than the more-often-quoted survey of major businesses.

But what if Democrats are right? Their proposed policies aren’t likely to make the situation much better — and could easily make it worse. It’s an axiom among Democrats that Franklin D. Roosevelt led the nation out of the Great Depression. But a closer look at his peacetime performance suggests something quite different.

FDR scrapped his own balanced budget pledge as soon as he took office in 1932 and opened the spending spigots. By 1936, the deficit had risen to 5.5 percent of national output — even higher than the Bush deficit is expected to be. And while the number of jobs did expand, it was still 3.2 million jobs short of the 1929 high water mark. By 1936, unemployment still stood at 16.9 percent, nearly triple today’s national unemployment rate.

Even after another four years of New Deal economics, including a hefty tax hike that did little to narrow the deficit, unemployment was still 14.6 percent. But we don’t hear Democrats talking about an FDR disaster.

Would higher taxes at least reduce inequality and “unfairness,” as Kerry and Edwards are claiming? The data on this issue only go back to 1947, but it’s worth remembering that in the 1990s, after Bill Clinton’s 1993 increase in the top income tax rate, inequality actually increased. The top five percent of income earners went from having 17.4 percent of all income in 1990, at the end of the Reagan decade, to 21.1 percent in 2000. The bottom 20 percent lost ground.

Bush may not have a great economic record, at least so far. But comparing Bush with Hoover is a bit like comparing a pothole in the road to Death Valley. And it suggests that Democrats don’t have a firm grip on what makes an economy tick.

And if you add the same sex marriage issue into this mix, especially with the actions of San Francisco Mayor Newsom, you have given the republican position a hot button issue which 66% of the public supports. He may have done himself good in San Francisco, but nationally, he has hurt the democrats.

"It's going to be a political backlash, and I think it will obviously mobilize our troops a lot more than it will mobilize traditional Democrats," said leading GOP consultant Ed Rollins, who believes the same sex marriage issue could impact both the presidential and California U.S. Senate races.

This is shaping up to be a very nasty and divisive political season, the dynamics of of which were set in motion by the democrats, with their actions of the last three years. It should be a close race, if all things remain the same as they are today. But if Kerry's record and past reveal some skeletons, if Osama is captured or killed and if the economy continues to grow, and jobs are created - there is potential for a landslide. We don't have a crystal ball, but if one is a betting person, there can be no doubt that the odds favor Bush, when you consider the advantages of the incumbency and that he and the republican party have not really entered the fray.

How democrats can keep deluding themselves that the public will not eventually awaken to their tactics of deceit when they focus on the election simply amazes me. Maybe my faith in the American people is misguided, andut I do know we can't take this election for granted, but with due dilligence, the election should be ours.

Kerry will continue to wave the bloody shirt until election day.

Most people don't pay attention. They are force fed info from the alphabet networks. Especially in the "logic free zone" around the Washington Beltway, people are eating up this garbage like it's gospel. I spent an hour with a Demwit shooting down, with facts, every unsubstantiated point he made against Bush and this Administration. The guy (a small business owner) still believes he'll be better off with another Demwit in the WH! He heard it in the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post and from PITA Jennings. Ignorance is our enemy and the NEA is in the pocket of the Dems. All the crap has happened since President Bush (how fast Clinton's legacy has materialized), we were fat and happy (delusional) under Clinton. Keep praying "Deliver us from Evil....liberals" and fighting hard!

Check this hilarious thread out.
Kerry to appoint a "Salmon Czar"
Read nutty comments from psycho environmentalists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=380594&mesg_id=380594

Kerry released copies of a letter he was sending to President Bush. It said, in part: "Over the last week you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation.

Just the idea that Kerry would write such a letter makes him look like a cry-baby.

Quite the opposite of the decorated Vietnam vet tough guy image he's been using to get the Dem nomination.

Of course Kerry's the one who's brought Vietnam into this election debate by repeatedly reminding everybody that he served in Vietnam.
Now that his antiwar activities and poor voting record on national defense are being brought out, he's crying foul.
Looks like Kerry's not so tough after all.

The left is fond of saying the President is sending jobs to India, China and other countries where jobs are cheaper. This just isn't the truth!

About the only thing that Ross Perot was really right about was NAFTA he said there would be the Giant Sucking Noise! He was right. The other great reasons America is loosing jobs to overseas markets falls right into the lap of the EPA with all their exorabitant rules and regulations and the Unions don't help - they continually ask their members to "STRIKE" companies during difficult times. Do the workers have a choice there? You bet they do and they should exercise their right to keep on working.

Question: Has American labor priced themselves out of the world markets...?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.